- This topic has 138 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 4 months ago by PerryChase.
November 12, 2006 at 9:23 PM #7900
November 13, 2006 at 1:23 AM #39831qcomerParticipant
I dislike Bush and strongly disagree with the Iraq war and the reasons for this war. Let me make it very clear that this war was redundant/useless and it has made America weaker. As I always say, the war ideology lacked basic understanding of the middle east culture/values as well as the fragile Shia/Sunni equation of Iraq.
Having said all that,to equate Bush with terrorists like OBL or alqaeda is absolute rubbish and naive. Just as I cannot stand the neo-cons, I also cannot stand the ultra liberals who see Bush as a retarded, christian fundamentalist, who is fighting this war in Iraq as a crusade. Bush was elected by the American people as the comander in chief of their armed forces. He used this mandate to decide Iraq war was justified and would help American interests in the region. He also doesn’t instruct American soldiers to kill Iraqi civilians intentionally. That is the difference between Bush and a terrorist who intentionally blows bombs to kill civilians.
Secondly, I don’t buy the report’s claim that most people killed in violence are by coalition bombings. Most innocent people being killed in Iraq are murdered in bomb attacks carried out by their fellow muslims (Sunni vs Shia and vice versa). There are no numbers for terrorists killed in any reports because they mask themselves as civilians.
November 13, 2006 at 6:45 AM #39832BikeRiderParticipant
powayseller, this is the greatest country in the world, proved by the fact that you can say what you just said about our president and you aren’t executed. Now, for what you said….. no person should speak about our president like you did. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I feel that he took the fight overseas so that more blood wasn’t shed in our country. Keep them busy over there so they don’t have time to regroup and come over here. I fear that once the Democrats succeed in stopping the fight, we’re going to have bombs going off in our streets and malls. You want to see home prices tank? Well, that would give you your wish. And I don’t know what kind of freedoms would be taken from us in the name of National Security. Troublesome. There are no easy answers to all this. You are dealing with people that are totally insane, willing to blow themselves up. Don’t care if they kill women and children. Everyone is their enemy.
November 13, 2006 at 7:52 AM #39835
The excess death claim comes from the Lancet, one of the most respected medical journals in the world.
“A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.”
If you disagree, please link a study which shows Iraq is safer now. Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, NATO, IMF… surely someone can vouch for this war?
I just checked Doctors Without Borders website. They are a non-political humanitarian organization run by volunteers and donations. “according to the United Nations, more than 400 specialized doctors have left Iraq since hostilities began in 2003. Furthermore, hundreds of other doctors have been killed. This is why, for example, the General Surgical Hospital of Baghdad currently has only one orthopedic surgeon. The threats against doctors also affect their patients as well, since this type of surgery requires an average hospital stay of three weeks—three weeks during which the patients are at the mercy of revenge operations by the various armed militias.”
Anyone who is defending this war, should first read some first-hand accounts of how much worse off Iraq is today than before Bush sent our troops over there.
In this Sept 2006 article, A Health Care System Overwhelmed, an Iraqi orthopedic surgeon describes the situation.
Iraq: A health care system overwhelmed
Dr. Bassam is an Iraqi physician specializing in orthopedic surgery, who took part in the launch of this project. He now lives with his family in Baghdad, and is a member of the partner team working with MSF. He explains the current situation of the Iraqi health care system, and talks about his collaboration with MSF:
How would you describe the health care system in Iraq today?
The level of medicine has deteriorated considerably in Iraq. It had already dropped after the Gulf War, but it has really gotten worse in the past few years. Before the war, a lot of patients came to Iraq for surgery, from Syria, Jordan, and elsewhere. It wasn’t expensive, and there were a lot of specialists. And medical care here had a good reputation. The situation deteriorated after the Gulf War, but got even worse after 2003. Now, security issues have top priority for the few existing financial resources, and medical needs are forced to take a back seat. This morning, dozens of people were killed in Fallujah. Yesterday it was Baghdad. And that’s not counting the wounded, who add to the long list of emergency cases packing the hospitals. Every day brings a new batch of dead and wounded1. In this context, patients simply cannot receive proper treatment from an increasingly overwhelmed health care system. Some are forced to sell their car, or even their house, to get certain kinds of care in the few hospitals able to provide it.
Which areas of medicine are primarily affected by the situation?
Specialized procedures are very difficult to provide, particularly when they require sophisticated techniques. For example, when it comes to reconstructive surgery, congenital malformations, microsurgery, or neurosurgery, it’s almost impossible right now to get operated on in Iraq. All the more so, since many doctors have gone farther north, or left the country, looking for someplace safer. As a result, there are fewer and fewer specialists, and—on top of everything—they are being particularly targeted. Many of them were kidnapped after the war began in 2003. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they work for the Iraqi health care system, and earn a salary that makes them targets of abduction and ransom demands, or they get jobs with foreign nongovernmental organizations, and risk being perceived as working for the Americans.
How do you keep working, in this context?
The task is especially hard when, in addition to the shortage of doctors and specialists, you have overcrowded hospitals, little adequate equipment, corruption, and the constant insecurity and curfew requirements restricting our practice. This is why, in partnership with MSF, we are trying to seek out patients waiting for reconstructive surgery. We offer them the chance to come to Jordan for treatment; we take care of their medical paperwork, their administrative paperwork, and the logistics of their transfer to Amman. In addition, we are making contact with various Iraqi hospitals, which will allow MSF to supply them regularly, depending on their needs. Security constraints, however, prevent us from taking action and publicizing the project in the way we would like. Indeed, MSF is considered to be a foreign organization, which exposes its collaborators to the risk of abduction, or worse. So we have to keep a low profile, as much for our safety as for that of the patients. This is why a huge amount of discretion is a must, in order for a project like this to succeed. On the other hand, we have an excellent network of doctors in Iraq, whom we know, and with whom we are in contact. I graduated in the 1980s, and others even before that. So we have many relationships in the country. But despite our respective experience, we are running into many difficulties.
What are the difficulties facing patients trying to go to Jordan?
Before the war, it was very easy for people in northern Iraq to get to the south. For example, if someone living in Ninawa wanted to get to Baghdad, 400 miles away, it would take him four hours of traveling. Today, the trip takes two or three times longer. Given the numerous checkpoints, the risk of being targeted, and the bombings, people are afraid to come to Baghdad; they prefer to treat themselves, and stay home. The second important point has to do with getting passports. They are very hard to get right now. For example, one of my colleagues, under direct threat in Iraq, had to flee the country and now works for MSF in Jordan. But his wife waited more than a month to get a passport. The third point has to do with the nature of the project, which is focused on three narrow areas: maxillofacial, orthopedic, and plastic surgery. There are so many patients needing other types of surgery, which we cannot provide in Amman.
1 According to a Pentagon report written at the request of the U.S. Congress and released on 1 September, in three months, the number of weekly attacks increased by 15 percent, and that of Iraqi victims—civilians and soldiers—by 51 percent.”
November 13, 2006 at 8:15 AM #39836BikeRiderParticipant
Poweyseller, stop posting this crap and start babbling about housing again, like you normally do. Of course they are in more danger. It is a war, against people that blow themselves up and target civilians while doing it. Put yourself in their place for one minute….. Ask yourself…. would you rather be ruled by a dictator or fight for freedom? Would you rather be FREE or live under the rule of one horrible leader unable to speak your mind? I would want to fight for freedom, no matter what the media said or some asshole study said. I’d rather be dead than live under a dictatorship.
You think that the war stopping ends everything? Nope. They will just come over here and start blowing themselves up. You’ll want action then for sure. I say take the fight to them and keep taking it to them. You make our country look weak.
November 13, 2006 at 9:01 AM #39840
Powayseller’s posts are exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said our policy had been “niced up” in attempt to pacify the media and the left. Even though we have gone to the most extraordinary lengths in the HISTORY OF THE WORLD (and warfare) to prevent civilian deaths while also trying to mitigate problems for them, powayseller wastes no time in declaring our president a terrorist. That makes me sick.
War is ugly. The occupying country is usually unbelievably harsh. We have been phenomenally benign in our occupation. Anyone who says otherwise needs to pick up a history book.
Powayseller wants us to stick our head in the sand like an ostrich while muttering about peace and love. Meanwhile, our a**es would be waving in the air, the perfect target for our next butt kicking.
Take your Bush and anti-America hate somewhere else.
Does anybody really think our problems with radical Islam are going to get better because we turn tail and run now that the Democrats have control of the House and Senate? Do they have any good solutions? I don’t think so. They certainly had a bag full of blame and a lot of finger pointing at their disposal, however.
November 13, 2006 at 9:34 AM #39842
PD, you are right that the Democrats have no answer either. Bush made a huge error in entering Iraq, and the intelligence at his dispoal, including his own father, predicted that civil war would result. Bush wouldn’t listen. Now, it is hard to fix this mistake. I don’t know what can be done now. I’m sure the Democrats are real worried, since they are expected to solve this difficult problem. Bush created a bad situation. He should have finished the job in Afghanistan, instead of cutting tail in Afghanistan.
PD, why do you think that people should not speak out against our politicians if they disagree? We should never impeach anyone? You think that anyone who disagrees with you should be silenced, or go away? Where would they go? Another forum, or another country? I can be friends with people who disagree with me, as long as they can be respectful toward me. Can you?
I’d like to hear your response to the quotes by der Spiegel, Lancet, Doctors without Borders, and how you will convince Europe and the rest of the world that this war is worthwhile for our national interest. It is the rest of the world that you must convince.
November 13, 2006 at 9:43 AM #39846
PS, you talk about being respected yet you give none to the President of the United States. You even go the unbelievable lengths of calling him a terrorist. You spew hate and vitriol at the President yet expect respect for yourself?
I don’t think we have the obligation to convince the rest of the world of anything.
We have one obligation – protect and nurture the United States of America.
November 13, 2006 at 9:59 AM #39848
The opinion expressed by powayseller is how most of the world thinks of Bush. They just don’t say it because they fear our military power and they want commerce with us.
I don’t think that comparing GWB to OBL is useful.
But let’s take a step back and look at how Iraq began. We started with good intentions but because our reasoning for the war was misguided, the war turned into a quagmire.
Let’s look at the consequences of our actions. Approximately 150,000 Iraqis and 2,900 American soldiers have been killed. What do we have to show for?
I agree with PD that war is brutal. However, Iraq wasn’t supposed to be a war of conquest. We promised to bring democracy and prosperity to Iraq. But what did we bring instead? Deaths and more deaths. By these measures, we have completely failed.
It’s not a matter of looking weak or strong. It’s a matter of integrity and living up to our ideals. In that respect, America failed miserably.
November 13, 2006 at 10:20 AM #39851sdcellarParticipant
This just occured to me for the first time, but you say that “because our reasoning for the ware was misguided, the war turned into a quagmire.” I’ve heard this sentiment many times, but thinking about it, what would be different if we had found these much ballyhooed WMDs? I suppose we might have more global support at this point, but also feel that such support might be in spirit only. Either way, we’d still be there right now, wouldn’t we?
Not trying to pick sides or anything here. I’m just wondering how things would be different. For some reason, I don’t feel they’d be that different–war sucks, nobody likes it, and when it’s all said and done, people want it over.
(also PC, you didn’t say WMDs yourself, I just wedged that in there because I seem to hear it a lot elsewhere… and I’m just kind of running stream of conciousness here)
November 13, 2006 at 10:38 AM #39852AnonymousGuest
Bush to resign and take job with the NAR.
November 13, 2006 at 11:03 AM #39853AnonymousGuest
NewFlash: For all you ingnorant Bush apologists, Iraq and Hussein had no connection with Al Queda. So, quit using the lamb rallying cry “We would rather fight them over there than over here”.
If you want to fight Al Queda, then why not invade Saudi Arabia, they had a more proven track record with developing Al Queda terrorists.
Doen’t it bother any of you that the entire world is against this war, and the entire world thinks Bush is a buffoon? Woudn’t it be better if the world respected our country and President? It may be nice someday when we actually need coalition support for a legitimate military operation.
November 13, 2006 at 11:14 AM #39854
WMDs or not, the world was against this war. They thought that we could contain Iraq like we contained the Soviets and the Chinese for half a century.
Think of it this way. Bush is the boss of America, the biggest company in the world. When the boss wants to make an acquisition really bad, he bullies the lower level managers into submission. They have no choice but to fall into line if they want to remain employed.
If the boss succeeds, he’s on the covers of magazines that proclaim him to be a visionary.
If the boss fails, people snicker behind his back and undermine him. Eventually the boss gets fired if the company looses too much money. The only way to turn around a failed organization is to hire a new chief executive. That new boss will then take the products from that failed acquisition and try to develop them into saleable items. The company will go through new bosses until it can turn around or go bankrupt.
Iraq is America’s failed acquisition and the products from that acquisition are all junk that will need a lot of engineering. America has a new Board of Directors but since the CEO’s contract is not up yet, he’s still hanging on. Meanwhile, America’s competitors are developing new products and building market share. If we don’t watch out, 10 years from now, we’ll still be stuck in Iraq while the rest the world moved on.
November 13, 2006 at 11:25 AM #39855AnonymousGuest
A few comments:
Issue: The facts, as understood by most people, are that the U.S. and the world thought there were WMDs, we went to war to get rid of them, but then discovered there were none. The concept of spreading democracy and making Iraq a beacon of demnocratic reform in the Middle East was never a premise for going to war, never sold to the American public or world before the war, but was instead used as a conveinant alternative mission once WMDs were not found.
Question: Isn’t it likely that the Bush Administration had already decided to go to war long before the case was made, the UN debates happened etc? Troops were being told 15+ months before the invasion that it was a done deal, that it would happen in 18 or so months. Isn’t it likely that the WMD argument was chosen as a compelling reason for war, and equally likely that Bush and company did everything they could to sell the plan, focus on intelligence that backed it up and ignore intelligence that refutted their WMD case?
Conclusion: A Democratic Congress will do more than demand troop withdrawals. They will launch investigations and reveal the truth about ‘how’ we went to war. IMO, this will further reveal that major lies were told, intelligence manipulated and that the American people were sold a case for war that was nowhere near as solid as it was portrayed. We have already seen evidence of this and it will only get deeper with a Democratic Congress.
If you believe that what I have stated is true, then the logical conclusion is that the President of the U.S. lied to the American public and manipulated intelligence in order to justify his preplanned invasion. the argument is not to say, “Well, the whole world thought the WMDs existed,” but rather to see that the world was lied to and manipulated by an information operations campaign by the White House to sway public opinion for the war.
November 13, 2006 at 11:34 AM #39858AnonymousGuest
Obviously the world did NOT believe there were WMDs because the world did not support the invasion as evidenced by the pathetic, non-existant coalition.
In fact, the UN security council specifically voted against military action and Bush basically flipped his middle finger at the rest of the world.
The fact that no WMD was found is an absolute EMBARRASMENT to Bush and the U.S. We specifically distanced ourselves from the UN and world opinion by invading Iraq so it was quite a risk to begin with. If you are going to take a risk like that, you better be right!
Well, clearly it was a disastrous mistake and that is why the Republicans are paying the price.
November 13, 2006 at 11:44 AM #39859
No, the world did believe that Iraq had WMDs. They just did not support the war because they hoped appeasement would work better. Also, many European countries had significant Muslim populations and they were fearful of Muslim rioting if they supported the U.S.
Lastly, many European countries were actively doing business with Saddam Hussein and were making loads of money from the situation. They of course were not interested in a war because they would be basically cutting off their own hands. France and Russia, the ones who were most opposed to the war, had billions owed to them by Saddam Hussein. Because the U.S. wouldn’t guarantee their payment, they were vehemently opposed to the war.
November 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM #39862JJGittesParticipant
Wow, the idiot that can’t string a complete sentence together fooled all of the Democrat rocket scientists quoted above, along with the rest of the “world community.” That Bush, he clearly is an evil genius.
Of course, one must wonder why such an evil genius, knowing WMDs would not be found, did not have them planted ahead of time, did not forsee the discord resulting from them not being found, and ended up as a lame duck with an opposition party now controlling the legislative branch for his final two years. Alas, perhaps the grand plan will unfold in time for our grand children’s history books.
One last question though, what happened to all that non-WMD stuf that rained down on those Kurdish villages that suffocated those thousands of men, women and children? Even after 10 years of inspection (less the 2 or 3 Saddam kicked him out), the Swede lawyer Blix could still not certify that Iraq had destroyed its arsenal. For all our sakes, I hope it does not end up here, via Syria or the Becca Valley, or the worst predictions regarding San Diego’s unfolding real estate plunge will certainly come true.
November 13, 2006 at 12:03 PM #39861
juice, everything you said is so true. You are right. We were lied to by the President, who told us that Saddam Hussein was a thread to our national security. Democratic investigations will reveal that Bush knew WMDs did not exist, and that his advisors knew our war in Iraq would cause the civil war we now see.
JJGittes, excellent quotes.
PD, Your writing sounds almost like a dictatorship, where people are condemned for voicing their opinion and disagreeing with the politicans. I wonder, how do you feel about free speech?
November 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM #39868AnonymousGuest
deadzone – The truth is somewhere in between what you and I said. Much of the world did in fact think he had WMDs, but even WMDs were not enough for them to support an invasion. They preferred more peaceful means, like inspections. Anyway, I think that if you asked the average guy like me, or even the average European, before the war if they had WMDs they would have said ‘yes’ or ‘probably.’
The interesting thing about my statements above is that they don’t require that you believe/believed Iraq didn’t have WMDs. There was a good case that they did in fact have them. I thought they did in 2003. It only requires that you accept the evidence that Bush’s team engaged in a hard sell, ignored intelligence and dissenters and perhaps lied on multiple occasions. After all, what exactly defines lying? Not telling the ‘whole’ truth should qualify in my book. I am certain that proof of this is forthcoming and might even result in the largest scandel to hit the Presidency in decades.
November 13, 2006 at 1:02 PM #39873AnonymousGuest
I believe the truth will eventually come out, may take many years.
One aspect that I find troubling is that the US, with the most sophisticated intelligence gathering capabilities in the world, could be so wrong. For me, this is not realistic.
We supported the invasion because we belived in our government and our intelligence. However, we were clearly duped. Meanwhile we are the laughing stock to the rest of the world.
November 13, 2006 at 1:11 PM #39874
Powayseller, free speech means only that government may not punish you for voicing your opinion. Have I suggested that the government should lock you up?
Free speech does not mean that others are prohibited from disagreeing with you.
Free speech does not mean that the press can publish/or report a story that aids our enemies (like reporting government secrets, military positions, movements or plans).
A good example of people who do not understand free speech is the country band The Dixie Chicks. They bad-mouthed the President while overseas. This resulted in angering many Americans who had previously been their fans. Those same former fans quit listening to The Dixie Chicks (me included). Radio stations quit playing their songs because the people listening did not want to hear them anymore. From the beginning of their stupidity, they have been whining about how their right to free speech has been hampered. This is so absurd. Sure, they have a right to spout their anti-Bush stuff. Their audience also has a right to refuse to listen to them anymore. Their problems have nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with the fact they are entertainers who rely on their fans for success. No more fans means no more success.
November 13, 2006 at 1:21 PM #39875AnonymousGuest
Most rational people don’t base their musical tastes on the political views of the artists. I personally don’t listen to the Dixie Chicks because their music sucks, but so does most country music in my opinion.
November 13, 2006 at 1:23 PM #39876
I’m a fan of the Dixie Chicks for speaking up. In my view, they understand free speech perfectly well. So do Johnnie Depp, Kanye West and other entertainers.
November 13, 2006 at 2:01 PM #39878AnonymousGuest
-Rapes happen everywhere and we should not condemn the US Military for ‘raping’ Iraqis.
-How much responsibility should we bear for the fact that Sunnis and Shittes are killing each other? We gave them freedom from a dictator and they are using it to kill each other. We did not kill 150,000 – most of that number is Iraqis killing each other.
-Our original mission was changed mid-course because we did not find WMDs. Bringing democracy to Iraq was a noble cause, but not one we bought into as a nation. The Iraqis have proven that they cannot live in democracy.
-If anything, at least we have proven that democracy in a unified Iraq wont happen. It probably took this invasion to prove that point, and it has implications for the whole Middle East and the manner in which the Western world deals with them in the future. Instead of pushing democracy, perhaps we should be capturing oil fields for our own benefit.
-We should redeploy and either put a strong man in power or divide the place in three. Let them kill each other like barbarians. There are strong men in power across the Middle East – this has been the proven model our allies in the region display to maintain control. Whether it is Egypt or Saudi Arabia, it is clear that we are probably a few hundred years too soon to expect the Middle East to start sprouting democracies. So let’s take the next best alternative and find a ruthless leader we can ally with.
November 13, 2006 at 3:15 PM #39890
PD, thanks for your reply to how you feel about free speech. Earlier, you wrote, “Powayseller wants us to stick our head in the sand like an ostrich while muttering about peace and love. Meanwhile, our a**es would be waving in the air, the perfect target for our next butt kicking. Take your Bush and anti-America hate somewhere else.”
With such strong words, I got the impression you preferred I did not voice my opinions. Whether the government locks me up, or you ask me to go somewhere else, is only a matter of degree. Both are attempts to silence my opinion, and both are anti-American.
If you wish to have an exchange of ideas, or simply choose to go away yourself (instead of asking me to go away), then you are a true patriot.
juice, I agree with everything you say. If democracy is a goal, should we invade every country that is not a democracy?
I also think the Iraqis are too strung out on their rigid religions to get along. Saddam Hussein may have been a tyrant, but he knew the primitive tribesmen of Iraq could not handle a democracy. He kept order in Iraq.
Bush’s advisors knew the country would fall into civil war if Hussein, the only person who kept a semblance of order, was removed. Only we, the people, did not know. But don’t cover up for Bush, because unlike us, he had full acess to Middle East experts and intelligence.
I also think it’s important to admit when a mistake was made. Let’s see if we will spend as many billions digging into Bush’s deception of Iraq, as we spent digging into Clinton’s sexual escapades.
November 13, 2006 at 3:18 PM #39892
I do prefer that you don’t spout your anti-Bush and anti-America hate. I think it crass it competely devoid of respect for our country. You like to paint yourself as the defender of the high road when you are no such thing.
As for free speech, you have the right to be hateful and I have the right to tell you take it somewhere else.
November 13, 2006 at 3:29 PM #39893
I sir serve my country for a living. He(President Bush) is stupid.
November 13, 2006 at 5:37 PM #39897
Hitler and Stalin kaput. Castro and Saddam soon to be kaput. The
people of Iraq, Iran and even Saudi Arabia deserves freedom and
liberty. Those jackass Germans, who writes like this, doesn’t. They
should “practice” for decades what they fellow East Germans
“enjoyed” during communism. There is no difference between the
German and American leftist elite… They’re all full of it. To side with
this level of hatred of America is not only stupid, but smells treasonous.
Don’t spin this leftist crap, hating America is NOT Patriotic, period.
November 13, 2006 at 8:14 PM #39905qcomerParticipant
PD and L_Thek,
Let’s not put words in the mouth of others here. Nobody said here that they hate “America”. You seem to equate hating/criticising American foreign policy or White house or American president with America. In reality, you neo-cons probably hated President Clinton even more and trust me I have heard Republicans talking all kind of bad stuff about Clinton during his time. So suddenly, don’t pretend that you freakin care about “American president”, you only care about Bush because he is a REPUBLICAN NEO-CON president. So stop the rubbish comments of equating the political views of an American to treason. Each and every American has the right to criticise/question/hate American policies, American politicians, American govt.
Is anyone else also fedup of the extremist liberals and extremist neo-cons, constantly bickering & fighting in this country (one calling Bush a terrrorist and other calling him/her traitor for that)?? So much energy and time is wasted in frivolous debates that aren’t objective but personal. Get off your high horses and start from basics, make your congressman/senator/governor/president EARN your vote. If you do that basic stuff right, things will sort out on the big scale as well. End of rant !!
November 13, 2006 at 6:00 PM #39899
“I sir serve my country for a living. He(President Bush) is stupid”
Thanks for serving our country, we disagree.
November 13, 2006 at 7:11 PM #39902AnonymousGuest
Perhaps we should say that he is intellectually uncurious. To draw a parallel to the housing bubble, there are some of us who engage in intellectual discussions about the bubble, are driven to understand how it all works, and are constantly processing information and engaging the world around us. And then there are the rest of us who decided long ago that housing prices will never go down, that there can be no bubble, and even in the face of mounting evidence refuse to deviate from our original ideas.
We elected a President who can make small talk about Texas weather and football with the best of them, but who likely does not enjoy watching The History Channel or spending too much time debating the historical role of religion in America or the historical reasons for Christian/Muslim tensions. Most people I have met in my life have a similar orientation, and that is likely how he got elected. It also happens to be his achilles heel. Presidents should be masters of intellectual curiosity and firm in their convictions that are borne of arduous debate and re-examination. A president should be able to masterfully understand and even argue all sides of an issue, and in the end illustrate why their beliefs and actions are valid.
November 13, 2006 at 7:19 PM #39904
AND complete a sentence without stuttering, stumbling, and mispronouncing words(or looking for his daddy).
November 13, 2006 at 9:36 AM #39844
Before the Iraq war, the Europeans and Iraqis were accusing us of genocide because of our embargo. Osama Bin Laden used the Iraqi embargo as rationale for attacking us. So the good old U.S. decided to approve and institute an oil for food program, which was corrupted. Still, the Europeans and Iraqis were accusing us to genocide. So, in an effort to improve the situation, the U.S. undertook a war to remove a threat to the world. And these same people still call us terrorists and accuse us of genocide. So non-partisan or not, these criticisms are hardly credible.
And incidentally, Powayseller, you always complain when others make personal attacks on you. At least show others the same courtesy, even the President of the United States. Name-calling is not useful in a debate, and it decreases your credibility.
November 13, 2006 at 11:20 AM #39856JJGittesParticipant
Why should the Country “hold Bush accountable” regarding Iraq, when it just put into power people who said the following…… once upon a time:
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
November 13, 2006 at 1:01 PM #39871bubba99Participant
The issue was never to stop or not to stop Hussein and his two sons, but how. A quick decapitation of the govt, and military would have done it. Completely dismantling the whole government and army was a mistake. “Stay the course is a mistake.”
I just don’t get how supposed patriots can justify the killing of 100,000’s of people with “Our intentions were good”. Tell it to the families of the dead. They don’t care if it was a terrorist or Bush and company; their loved ones are gone. Our actions in Iraq have made the United States the bad guy. We have raped and tortured innocents, we are holding hundreds without charges nor access to hapeus corpus, we have kidnapped and “Extraordinarily Renditioned” too many people to claim the moral high ground any more.
It will take years for our men and women in uniform to live down this disaster, and they are the ones who will pay the price. Any backwater country can now ignore the Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners because the U.S. did. Abu Grabe is not an isolated case of a few soldiers going wild, it is part of a system of interrogation that is totally disregards any human dignity and seeks to generate information at any cost – be it good Intel or bad. Torture anyone long enough and they will start talking about something.
November 13, 2006 at 2:27 PM #39884sdnativesonParticipant
It was the time when wholesale houses close
Their shutters with a moody sense of wealth,
But retail dealers, diligent, let loose
The gas (objected to on score of health),
Convey’d in little solder’d pipes by stealth,
And make it flare in many a brillant form,
That all the powers of darkness it repell’th,
Which to the oil-trade doth great scaith and harm,
And supersedeth quit the use of the glow-worm.
November 13, 2006 at 2:32 PM #39885
“It was the time when wholesale houses close
Their shutters with a moody sense of wealth,
But retail dealers, diligent, let loose
The gas (objected to on score of health),
Convey’d in little solder’d pipes by stealth,
And make it flare in many a brillant form,
That all the powers of darkness it repell’th,
Which to the oil-trade doth great scaith and harm,
And supersedeth quit the use of the glow-worm”
I’d like to hear President Bush say that! That’d be funny!
November 13, 2006 at 3:12 PM #39891
Gonna throw my 2 cents in…I don’t really consider myself GOP or Democrat, but I can say I’m not particularly happy with Bush. However, I don’t believe him to be the maniacal evil genius some make him out to be- he just could have done a much better job than he did.
-It is true that Europe looks down on Americans. While it is due in large part to our President’s performance and the questionable nature of our dealings in the Middle East, it is also due to the American people themselves and our general ignorance about any country besides our own. I don’t think that really applies to the people on this board, but I think we’ve all seen the “Jaywalking” segment of the Tonight Show. ‘Nuff said.
-Arguing about whether or not we should have gone to war in the Middle East is a moot point at this stage in the game. While I don’t necessarily agree with the fact that we went out there in the first place, I do think that it would be a huge mistake to leave Iraq now and pull out our troops. It’s not about “winning,” it’s about the Iraqi people- we promised them freedom, we took away their government and promised them a better one. We should, on principle, follow through with our promise- pulling our troops out now would make the situation much, much worse. I may be optimistic, but I don’t believe the Democrats will just pull the troops out, it would be disastrous.
There is much wrong in our government, but I don’t believe that just the government is to blame- the American people voted those politicians into office. And the typical American way of life is completely out of hand- it only takes a visit to a few other countries to see how ego-centric, wasteful, and obsessed with possessions Americans can be.
November 13, 2006 at 8:20 PM #39906technovelistParticipant
You are completely correct on all counts, of course. It never ceases to amaze me that some people can’t distinguish between the United States (the country) and the government, including the President. I guess this proves the efficacy of the brainwashing done by the “publik skools” and other instruments of social control. Anyone who can think for him or herself can easily distinguish these two without effort, and see that one can love one’s country and loathe its government. In fact, these days, if you love this country, that isn’t just possible: it’s inescapable.
November 13, 2006 at 9:00 PM #39909
PD, Why do you hate me for bringing up these opinions?
A terrorist is anyone who kills masses of innocent civilians. History is full of them, and we always thought we were better, but are we? Today’s terrorist list includes Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Bush (and his military leaders). If we had finished the job in Afghanistan, and stayed out of Iraq, we wouldn’t even have this conversation.
November 13, 2006 at 9:16 PM #39912
“Today’s terrorist list includes Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and Bush (and his military leaders).”
Nice, you must have some serious moral misalignment in your
confused mind. Are you sure, you wanted to share this great
opinion piece with the members of this forum? I think you
owe an explanation to the rational segment of society.
November 13, 2006 at 9:41 PM #39913AnonymousGuest
Powayseller, your comments are rude and disrespectful. In the future, save us the headache, and confine such to your website.
Oh, and congratulations on doing a great job of attracting potential subscribers to your future website, too.
The Lancet is a leftist medical journal, as is JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): every other paper or article is on AIDS, breast cancer, case for nationalized medicine/lack of access, racial disparities in care, etc. The Lancet is inferior to the even-keeled The New England Journal of Medicine and The British Medical Journal. The Lancet and JAMA are, indeed, prestigious, for the same reasons that the NY and LA Times are: for work done long ago, and for adherence to leftist groupthink. I know these things because I read these journals for many years as part of my job.
Maybe you should consider a return to your native land, either permanently or, at least, until your anger passes and your sanity returns.
November 13, 2006 at 10:51 PM #39914
Here is an article for your perusal that states that the Lancet was wildly exaggerating the 100k civilian deaths.
How Lancet Cooked Up the Numbers
Some interesting quotes from the article:
” The recent survey, published in the British medical journal, “The Lancet,” claiming over 650,000 civilian deaths due to the liberation of Iraq, was quickly labeled propaganda, not science. Is the survey accurate? The answer is, apparently not. The survey is widely out of sync with casualty counts by other organizations, and by a wide margin. A 2004 study by the same authors claimed 100,000 civilian casualties – a survey at odds with one done by the United Nations at the same time (which estimated 18,000 to 29,000 deaths). To compare this with other studies – the group Iraq Body Count only claims 49,000 civilian deaths, the Brookings Institution reports 62,000, and the Los Angeles Times has reported 50,000 civilian deaths since the liberation of Iraq.”
So Powayseller, if you are using disreputable sources and not doing your due diligence before making genocidal and terrorist accusations, aren’t you LYING? I mean, the information is out there by a simple google search. Are you being arrogant by only looking at data that favors your point of view? Maybe you are so blinded by your anger and hatred that you can ignore the other evidence that does not fit your world view?
I am not being accusatory or making allegations towards your person, but I just thought you would like to know how the shoe feels on the other foot.
November 13, 2006 at 11:01 PM #39915
Here’s another detailed analysis of the Lancet numbers:
Iraqi death reports merely propaganda
Some notable quotes:
“Consider just this: Because the sample size was so small, the range for deaths was wider than Mick Jagger’s mouth: 8,000 to 194,000. So Roberts and company just split the difference. They said the tiny sample size was necessary because the interviewers were in constant danger. No doubt they meant being caught in the crosshairs of an F-16, rather than any possible threat from those jolly terrorists who routinely kidnap civilians and slowly saw off their heads.
Further, the researchers didn’t feel bound by anything official like death certificates. Interviews were fine. “In the Iraqi culture it was unlikely for respondents to fabricate deaths,” they wrote.”
“Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. “These numbers seem to be inflated,” due “to overcounting,” Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post. The website http://www.iraqbodycount.com estimates about 14,000-16,000 deaths since the war began. The Evil One himself, bin Laden, in his pre-election video, made reference to the Iraq war and stated “over 15,000 of our people have been killed.””
November 13, 2006 at 11:52 PM #39917AnonymousGuest
Patriotic? Are all people who criticise the President or government unpatriotic? Or even worse do they necessarily hate America? That is what may of you have implied on this board.
The only thing I hate about America it is the stupidity of these types of people, who would dare question someones patriotism or love of country simply because they are critical of the government.
I’m sure these same idiots were whining along with Rush Limbaugh every day that Clinton was in office. I guess they all hated America too.
November 14, 2006 at 3:35 AM #39919lostkittyParticipant
jg said: “The Lancet is a leftist medical journal, as is JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association): every other paper or article is on AIDS, breast cancer, …”
Are you kidding me??????? Since when is breast cancer a “leftist” issue? That was a positively assinine posting. You show yourself to be a real ‘boob’.
November 14, 2006 at 7:53 AM #39923AnonymousGuest
That's funny, lk, breast cancer and 'b….'
I've got a wife, daughter, and mother; women's health is important to me. The incredible focus on breast cancer, at the expense of heart disease (the biggest killer of women), makes no sense to me.
This is dated, but it gives you a sense that research dollars are NOT rationally (but, instead, emotionally) allocated:
November 14, 2006 at 9:25 AM #39929CardiffBaseballParticipant
Hey I was a Clinton ’92 voter, while active-duty military.
I grew up a Union Democrat, one that the brie-eating, foreign car driving california liberal tolerates once every 4 years before going back to their social clubs.
I thought the Democratic Party was out to protect the auto and steel industry. Economic Nationalists. So despite my pro-gun stance, my distaste for welfare-queens, affirmative action, death penalty opponents, etc. I plugged my nose and voted conservative Democrat (Abilene – Charles Stenholm, Youngstown – Jim Traficant). At some point, I just couldn’t take it anymore, and since both parties became Pro-Nafta, I at least agreed in principle more with Newt Gingrinch than I did the granola crowd so here I am.
November 15, 2006 at 8:51 PM #40093AnonymousGuest
lk, I'm a day late (literally) on this, but here's more recent evidence of using emotion, instead of logic, to direct medical research dollars:
$400MM for prostate cancer research in '05, which has an annual incidence (new cases) of 234K.
$700MM for breast cancer research in '05, which has an annual incidence of 213K.
More spending on a disease that's less common; difficult to understand.
We guys don't want more money spent on us, especially if it's going to be taken away from our wives, daughters, and mothers. But, we sure hope to be acknowledged for maintaining our stiff upper lip!
And, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) proved my earlier point that it's politically-correct organ; it's dedicated its ENTIRE current issue to men's health:
Look at that cover; I'm embarrassed for us men.
November 14, 2006 at 5:42 AM #39921
“Patriotic? Are all people who criticise the President or government unpatriotic?”
If the criticism is constructive and well argued, no. When
become hysterical and is helping the propaganda of our
enemies, defenetely unpatriotic, even treasonous.
“The only thing I hate about America it is the stupidity of these types of people, who would dare question someones patriotism or love of country simply because they are critical of the government.”
Did someone smacked you on your head, so keep running in circles?
“I’m sure these same idiots were whining along with Rush Limbaugh every day that Clinton was in office. I guess they all hated America too.”
Actually one of the idiots (me), become U.S. citizen just before the
’92 elections. I volunteered for the Clinton campaign, and celebrated
his win. It’s not my fault, Clinton betrayed every straight thinking
Democrats and destroyed the traditional Democratic base. I’m one
of the many, who can say, the Party left me. (Rush Limbaugh has
nothing to do with Clinton’s ethical standards.)
November 14, 2006 at 7:12 AM #39922daveljParticipant
This series of posts reminds me of something my father told me a long time ago: “Don’t get into a fight with a pig, son. You both end up getting dirty but the pig enjoys it.”
November 14, 2006 at 10:03 AM #39931sdnativesonParticipant
I can’t believe this thread lasted this long on a R.E. site.
This site didn’t provide any new insights so, before I delete this link a couple of thoughts.
The original post, ps, you posted (parroted) a quote
Reading news (all opinion and/or propaganda) from around the world falls short of the true (I assume, unless your goal is purely self validation) purpose of the endevour.
I browse through hundreds of publications world wide daily
(it’s my work), I say browse, meaning when something of interest is found, I look for the actual source of the content, then the motivation(true intent) becomes (hopefully) clearer, then I have an idea of
where and to whom to go for something more concise.
Needless to say, it’s necessary to find and look at all sides (not both) of a….. “event” however distasteful and tedious, in order to attempt even a modicum of understanding.
My point(s) (there are several), maybe take away this one, reading and gathering information that only validates your opinions is ultimately worthless to you and those you espouse it to.
I would also suggest that the practice of using vindictive toward those with whom you disagree and their subsequent opinions be stopped. Name calling and insulting comments is not the way to create an dialogue. If it’s a dialogue you want. It shows a style that has no class. If you cannot show respect to those with whom you disagree (until they have proven they aren’t worthy of it)
you certainly aren’t entitled to it. It’s juvenile and shows a lack of intelligence.
I didn’t come here for social rhetoric, I came here to see if there was something to be gleaned as to a section of the market in San Diego from those who are living it.
Ignore the typos and grammatical errors I choose not to fix them but move on.
November 14, 2006 at 10:32 AM #39934picpouleParticipant
Spiegel online has an article entitled, “Bye, Bye, Deutschland” about how productive working people are leaving Germany in droves because of very poor career and job prospects. At the same time, poor Muslim immigrants keep streaming in. Germany is a sclerotic, state that is collapsing in on itself. It is also virulently anti-American, even though we rescued them from the Nazis last century.
And along those lines, why should we listen to anything Germany has to say about our leaders? They have shown very, very poor judgment in picking their leaders. And the Germans have proven far more dangerous than the U.S. in world affairs. Thanks to them, we had wholesale manslaughter, bloodshed, death camps and genocide during two World Wars that they were responsible for. After their sorry history, they get to make fun of us? What a joke!
In the next ten years, when decadent Germany comes running to the U.S. to save them from the civil war they’ll have with the Muslims, the U.S. will turn its back on them — finally. And I’ll say, “Good Riddance.”
November 14, 2006 at 12:10 PM #39952
“Spiegel online has an article entitled, “Bye, Bye, Deutschland” about how productive working people are leaving Germany in droves because of very poor career and job prospects.”
Absolutely correct, well done. The sad part of the story, too many
boneheads in our great country ignores the lessons of history and think, they stupid head will not be chopped off by the militant islamist, because they hated Bush and America.
November 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM #39955AnonymousGuest
Germany isn’t the only country who criticises Bush, virtually every country in the world is critical of the Iraq war and Bush. You guys need to get out more often.
November 14, 2006 at 1:04 PM #39957socalarmParticipant
November 14, 2006 at 1:06 PM #39960socalarmParticipant
“The sad part of the story, too many
boneheads in our great country ignores the lessons of history and think, they stupid head will not be chopped off by the militant islamist, because they hated Bush and America.”
i will memorize this one
November 14, 2006 at 3:17 PM #39973
The Germany of today is much different from the Germany of 60 years ago. Germans are the most well-traveled people in the world so they are very open to what’s going on in the world. You can see Germans just about everywhere you go.
On the other hand, Americans tend to stay home in the comfort of their living-rooms. They base their opinions on what they see on TV.
November 14, 2006 at 3:55 PM #39977
Well said, PerryChase. I know far too many people in America who couldn’t be bothered to visit neighboring counties, let alone other countries. When I’m abroad it always amazes me how much citizens of other countries pay attention to what is going on in the world- they pay close attention not only to their own politics, but also the politics of many other countries.
I’m not sure if that has something to do with the media though, as American media tends not to report on foreign politics (unless it has to do with some fear-mongering subject like nuclear war), while I’ve noticed that news programs in other countries include news from many different nations and cultures in their reports. It can’t all be blamed on the media though, a certain amount of personal responsibility for being aware of the global community that one is a part of is necessary, and certainly is found wanting in most Americans today.
I think the bubble analogy applies not only to housing, but to most Americans themselves- they’re bubble people, living inside their own bubble and totally unaware and uninterested in anything that happens outside of their bubble.
November 14, 2006 at 4:08 PM #39979AnonymousGuest
I agree the germany today is not the germany of our fathers or grand-fathers. I travel alot so I am inclined to disagree with Germans being the most well traveled, I could be wrong but it’s not what I observe. For instance, I was in Germany in June and if was full of…. Germans ok, ok bad joke. My recent travels mostly South East Asia and Central America while I did meet several of European nationality the largest group was Austrian. For the most part I am seeing mostly chinese and koreans and surprisingly Mexicans.
November 14, 2006 at 4:43 PM #39981
“I think the bubble analogy applies not only to housing, but to most Americans themselves- they’re bubble people, living inside their own bubble and totally unaware and uninterested in anything that happens outside of their bubble.”
Called liberal elite…
November 14, 2006 at 5:46 PM #39984AnonymousGuest
Liberal Elite is just a label that uneducated people like to call smarter people in order to feel better about themselves.
November 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM #39985
The “liberal elite” in SoCal includes a good number of Hollywood types. Although rich, they aren’t known for their education. Sean Penn really looked like a big smartie when he went over to Iraq before we invaded. Ben Affleck is a big smartie too. Did I hear that Barbara Streisand is secretly a physicist? Hmm… maybe I’ve got her confused with someone else.
November 14, 2006 at 6:24 PM #39987
Yep, it’s no problem finding poorly educated spokespeople from the extreme end of either the right or left wing. Rush Limbaugh, for example, dropped out of Southeastern Missouri State University after one year.
November 14, 2006 at 6:25 PM #39986
Whoops, ended up with 2 copies…
November 14, 2006 at 7:22 PM #39988
“Liberal Elite is just a label that uneducated people like to call smarter people in order to feel better about themselves”
Education has nothing to do with smartness. Actually today’s
college educated leftist “smartys” are the dumbest most uninformed
and segregated people. They’ve learned only how to look and act
“smart”. Easy to recognize them, they’re spending large portion of they
money and time at Starbucks Coffees, talking to each other only,
watching the screens of laptops, and obviously calling normal Americans
ignorent. They’re very concerned about “global warming”, oil drilling,
tobacco smoke and health, generally. Awsome…
By the way, I couldn’t hire a single college educated “smarty” in the
past 10 years. Sorry, they’re just a bunch of useless, dumb kids. I hope
they’ll grow up by age 45.
November 14, 2006 at 7:39 PM #39989AnonymousGuest
Sounds like the liberal elite have a good life. Given the choice, I’d rather be more educated, make more money and hang out at Starbucks. What’s not to like about that?
Sounds like some of you lack of self confidence if you have to resort to name calling of people who are more successful than you.
November 14, 2006 at 8:12 PM #39991AnonymousGuest
I don’t think that was the point of L_Thek’s post deadzone.
I took it in the content that there is a disassociation from economic reality. You must be aware of that if you are here at this site. That said, this disassociation isn’t limited to the twenty somethings – it goes though alot of the thirty, forty, fify somethings as well. You make the assumption that he lacks self confidence and that the people he calling people names are more successful. Where in the world did you get that from?
November 14, 2006 at 8:13 PM #39992
I did read somewhere a while back that Germans are the most well traveled as a proportion of the population of a “big” economy. Americans rank pretty low possibly because America is so big and people don’t feel they need to leave the country. George Bush felt that way and before becoming president, he’d not been anywhere (except for perhaps Mexico?).
However, Jeb Bush (the smart one) lived in Venezuela and married a Latina.
In my view, it’s admirable to be being well-educated and prosperous, yet care about the environment and the poor. Better than the conservative elites who care about nothing and on one but themselves.
November 14, 2006 at 8:19 PM #39993AnonymousGuest
“In my view, it’s admirable to be being well-educated and prosperous, yet care about the environment and the poor. ”
Well said, I think most rational people will agree.
“Better than the conservative elites who care about nothing and on one but themselves.”
You should be more generous PC and spread the greed around it’s hardly an attribute solely of the conservative elites.
November 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM #40005CardiffBaseballParticipant
Travel sucks. Tales of an American dummy. (just having some fun)
In my previous company, my CTO was in Holland, and my boss was in Scotland so I traveled there for 3 weeks on 2 occasions. I like the experience for a few days, hung out in Amsterdam, got drunk in Scotland, went to William Wallace’s monument, etc. However I got so tired of taking buses and trains everywhere and living by the schedule.
When I got back to the US, I wanted to do something completely American. I hopped in my pickup truck, drove it to a steakhouse, where I got to park my own damn car, in a free parking lot, and didn’t worry about leaving at a certain time. Also the freakin’ techno music blaring everywhere I went was nauseating. Christ didn’t Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath come from the UK? What was with this blaring sissy music? So upon returning, another thing I did for about two days until it nauseated me was to listen to country music. I don’t care much for that genre but it was so not Euro, that I just had to do it.
Similarly I went to Tokyo for 3 weeks, and I ate a lot of McDonalds. However Tokyo it was easier to find a good steak, and I did like Shabu-Shabu or Swish-Swish, whatever it’s called.
In all cases I liked the local beers, except the Guiness type heavy stuff. The scottish women were just yuck the first time, but when I went back it seemed they discovered tanning salons, and streaked-multi colored hair so they looked much better. Dutch women I just loved, tall, thin, with nice backsides. I kind of liked the Japanese girls, but it seemed like I could throw them 20 feet. You can’t breed football players with a 4’11” 80 pound woman. I am 6’1″ barely above average and I felt like a Giant in Shin-Juku city down at the train station.
In any case no voluntary trips in smelly tubes for me. It’s either corporate based or I won’t go. I recently passed on an option to go to India on business. I follow the Anabolic Diet, and what would I eat for two weeks over there? Actually the new version is called the Metabolic Diet.
November 15, 2006 at 6:45 AM #40010AnonymousGuest
I wrote the following letter to my then senator a month before the war began. In my view, the backers of war with Iraq are completely responsible for the appalling cost in lives, both Iraqi and American. All of the justifications for the war were demonstrated as false in the world press before the war began.
There is already the possibility of war crimes charges being filed against Rumsfeld. Historically and legally speaking, these charges are appropriate. There will be others charged.
As far as the Lancet article is concerned, I am not a statistician, but colleagues who are have informed me that the lead author of the study is the most prominent US scholar of statistical analysis of war dead. His figures have been widely accepted for other conflicts. The Lancet/Johns Hopkins study cites 655,000 Iraqi dead as a result of the US invasion and war.
Since many have invoked history in defense of the war, I would like to point out that from a historical perspective, the Iraq war is already the third and will perhaps become the second most destructive Middle East war of the past 100 years, behind only the First World War of 1914-1918 and the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, during which we backed Iraq while 1,000,000 were killed.
Many have claimed that the US is “giving” Iraq democracy or fulfilling some useful goal in Iraq. These claims are without basis in fact. The United States went to Iraq for its own reasons, and there is nothing noble, or justified, or well-intentioned about invading and destroying a country without provocation against the wishes of its inhabitants.
17 February 2003
Dear Senator Hutchison:
As a Texan, an American, and a professor of Middle Eastern History, I urge you to make efforts to stop further violence in the Middle East.
Based on 15 years spent studying Middle Eastern history and politics, I can say with professional assurance that the arguments made in favor of war with Iraq are not supported by evidence.
The Bush administration has made three central points about reasons for war: First Iraq has banned weapons. Second Iraq threatens the US. Third Iraq has some connection with the people responsible for the attacks of September 11 2001.
The first contention is unproven. Only time and further inspections will determine if Iraq possesses banned weapons.
The second contention is demonstrably false. Iraq has never threatened the US. Iraq is a secular, authoritarian police state. It seeks regime survival and regional prominence. The only time the Iraqi government has threatened its neighbors was while it was a US ally. The Iran-Iraq war and the various gas attacks of Kurds and Iranians cost 500,000 lives and were indirectly supported by the US. The Reagan administration reopened diplomatic relations with Iraq in the midst of that ghastly war in 1984. We enjoyed friendly relations with Iraq until the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. While Kuwait and Iran have both suffered from Iraqi actions, both states oppose US involvement in a war against Iraq. How could they possibly be less threatened than the US?
The claimed connection between Iraq and September 11 is completely fallacious. As a secular authoritarian dictatorship, the Iraqi government has been fighting against Islamic militants for more than 30 years. Iraqi jails are full of Islamists. Saddam Husayn and Usama Bin Ladin are literally the bitterest rivals imaginable from opposite extremes of Arab political ideology. They are not now and never will be in alliance.
I know that you support the President’s policy in Iraq. Given the above facts, and the possible costs in lives and money of a war in the Gulf, including civil war in the Middle East, destabilization, a boost in the resonance of Bin Ladin’s “Clash of Civilization” message, and massive increases in anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and around the world, I wonder if you could explain the reasoning behind your position?
Michael Provence, Ph.D, Modern Middle Eastern History, University of Chicago.
November 15, 2006 at 8:54 AM #40021AnonymousGuest
Statisics are only as precise as the person compiling them is unbiased.
Link to the Army’s Foreign Military Studies Office.
Document # ISGZ-2004-009247
The document is an Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) review of Iraqi efforts to establish ties with the Saudi opposition in the years following the 1991 Gulf war. Guess who that was?
Saddam is/was an Baathist, most Iraquis viewed the Baath party as terrorists given their small minority status and their predeliction toward extremely violent suppression of any parties or sects that they viewed as potential threats.
The fact they killed other “Islamists” is moot.
As to your comment of unproven banned weapons;
Heres a brief list of sources to contradict your comments;
later maybe you can list yours.
 Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, “Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” New York Times, September 8, 2002, p. 1.
 Anthony Cordesman, “Creating Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Armed Forces Journal International, Vol. 126, February 1989, p. 56.
 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1993) pp. 124-125.
 Central Intelligence Agency, “Chemical Warfare Agent Issues during the Persian Gulf War,” Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force, April 2002.
 “Iraq’s Aziz Denies Chemical Weapons Charges,” Teheran IRNA in English, April 1, 1985, transcribed in FBIS-SAS-85-062, Vol. VIII, No. 062, April 1, 1985, p. I5.
 Barbara Crossette, “Iraq Ratchets Up Renewed Defiance over Inspections,” New York Times, November 23, 1998, p. A1.
 (Newswire), “U.N. Says Iraq Put Fatal Gas in Weapons,” Buffalo News, June 25, 1998, p. A4.
 Jack C. Dacre, “Toxicology of Some Anticholinesterases Used As Chemical Warfare Agents—a Review,” in Miro Brzin, Eric A. Barnard, and Dusan Sket, eds., Cholinesterases: Fundamental and Applied Aspects, Proceedings of the Second International Meeting on Cholinesterases, Bled, Yugoslavia, September 17-21, 1983 (New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1984) pp. 418-419.
 Edward M. Spiers, Chemical Weaponry (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1989) p. 42.
 Charles L. Punte, “Some Aspects of Particle Size in Aerosol Studies,” Armed Forces Chemical Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, March-April 1958, p. 30.
 Karlheinz Lohs, Synthetic Poisons (East Berlin: German Military Publishing House, Second Edition, 1963), p. 63.
 Edward B. Vedder, The Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (Baltimore, NY: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1925) p. 173.
 James K. Senior, “The Manufacture of Mustard Gas in World War I [Part I],” Armed Forces Chemical Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, September-October 1958, pp. 12-14; 16-17; 29.
 Curt Wachtel, Chemical Warfare (Brooklyn, NY: Chemical Publishing Co., Inc., 1941), pp. 46-47.
 “New Rules to Counter Chemical Warfare,” Chemical Week, April 11, 1984, p. 58; and Lois R. Ember, “Worldwide Spread of Chemical Arms Receiving Increased Attention,” Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 64, No. 15, April 14, 1986, pp. 8-16.
 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1993) p. 23.
 Armed Forces Pest Management Board, “Delousing Procedures for the Control of Louse-borne Disease During Contingency Operations,” Walter Reed Army Medical Center, March 6, 2002, p. 4.
 Richard O’Brien, Toxic Phosphorus Esters (New York: Academic Press, 1960) p. 7.
 Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 112, 1990, No. 142321k, S. J. Armour, “Characterization of K 125/Diethyl Malonate Solutions Used as Simulants for Thickened GD,” Report 1989, DRES-SR-389, Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Alberta, Canada (abstract).
 The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC), application no. 855078, September 2, 1969.
 At present, both the United States and the former Soviet Union have committed to destroying their remaining chemical weapons stockpiles (amounting to a combined total of approximately 65 thousand tons), but the issue of thickened agents remains, chiefly because of the technical matter involved in chemical demilitarization. In the case of Russian thickened V-gas stockpiles, a special chemical is needed to fully dissolve the polymer, ensuring that all remaining V-agent is neutralized.
 Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 112, 1990, No. 142321k, S.J. Armour, “Characterization of K 125/Diethyl Malonate Solutions Used as Simulants for Thickened GD,” Report 1989, DRES-SR-389, Defence Research Establishment Suffield, Alberta, Canada (abstract).
 Michael R. Gordon and Judith Miller, “Threats and Responses: The Iraqis; U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts,” New York Times, September 8, 2002, p. 1.
 There are two categories of dust carriers: clay- and talc-based materials. Clays include kaolinite and attapulgite (Fuller’s earth), while silicas include talc, diatomite, and pumice. Dusts used as insecticides are generally smaller than 50 microns in diameter, with most of the particles between 3 and 30 microns. Kenneth A. Hassall, The Chemistry of Pesticides (Deerfield Beach, Florida: Verlag Chemie, 1982) p. 31.
 R.E. McNally, M.I. Hutton, M.B. Morrison, J. Berndt, and J.E. Fischer, “Chemical Defense with Topical Skin Protectant (TSP),” Joopa, MD: Science Applications International Corporation, 1993, in Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 123, 1995, No. 348827r, p. 599 (abstract).
 U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), “Iraq-Kuwait: Chemical Warfare Dusty Agent Threat,” Filename:73349033, October 10, 1990.
 R.E. McNally, M.I. Hutton, M.B. Morrison, J. Berndt, and J.E. Fischer, “Chemical Defense with Topical Skin Protectant (TSP),” Joopa, MD: Science Applications International Corporation, 1993, in Chemical Abstracts, Vol. 123, 1995, No. 348827r, p. 599 (abstract).
 Jonathan B. Tucker, “Evidence Iraq Used Chemical Weapons during the 1991 Persian Gulf War,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 4, No. 3, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies, Spring-Summer 1997, p. 120.
 Central Intelligence Agency, “Chemical Warfare Agent Issues during the Persian Gulf War,” Persian Gulf War Illnesses Task Force, April 2002.
November 15, 2006 at 9:03 AM #40023AnonymousGuest
One more thing M.P.
lest my nom de guerre give you the wrong impression, I acknowledge and respect your stated opinion. With respect to you and your colleagues, I disagree with your assessments.
November 15, 2006 at 6:47 AM #40009AnonymousGuest
November 14, 2006 at 11:05 PM #40003
The wisdom of deadzone:
‘The only thing I hate about America it is the stupidity of these types of people, who would dare question someones patriotism or love of country simply because they are critical of the government.’
‘You guys need to get out more often.’
‘Liberal Elite is just a label that uneducated people like to call smarter people in order to feel better about themselves.’
‘Sounds like some of you lack of self confidence if you have to resort to name calling of people who are more successful than you.’
November 15, 2006 at 9:22 AM #40025carlislematthewParticipant
Wow, what a thread.
Personally, I can’t wait until BOTH sides (liberal-elite lefty sissies AND uneducated right-wing neocon nutjobs) get thrown out of the mainstreams and into their traditional place, the extremes.
I’m fed up of debates that in the Moore vs Limbaugh style. Everyone gets worked up, insults each other and just end up throwing sh*t at each other. Lovely.
L-“Bush is a complete idiot!”
R-“Clinton was worse!”
L-“Bush is a terrorist!”
R-“You hate America!”
L-“Free speech!!! Gotcha! You must hate America more!”
R-“Free speech means I can say what I want!!”
November 15, 2006 at 9:24 AM #40026lindismithParticipant
Yeah, good stuff.
Michael, great letter! Just curious if you got a reply?
November 15, 2006 at 9:59 AM #40030AnonymousGuest
The criticism of Bush transcends party lines. Whether you are a granola eating hippy liberal or a bible thumping conservative, Bush and the Iraq war are an undeniable failure.
Claiming all criticism is coming from the left is false. For one thing, if you travel anywhere in the world, the criticism was strong from the beginning. If you want true unbiased opinions, you need to read newspapers from places like Australia where they have no interest in American party politics.
Now that the Republicans were thumped in the election thanks to their support of Bush and Iraq, you will see more and more Republicans coming out of the closet to criticise the war and distance themselves from Bush. The only reason they stayed in the closet was for party allegiance (they may come out of the closet for other reasons too..)
November 15, 2006 at 10:11 AM #40032
deadzone, that’s a poor argument on several levels. First, the war is still ongoing, and it can’t be a success or failure until it’s over. Would you have advocated surrender in WWII in 1943 because the war was not yet won?
When you say newspapers from other countries have no interest in American politics, how do you square that with the assertions of several people on this thread that people from other countries are worldly and cosmopolitan? Wouldn’t such people have knowledge of American politics, and given their knowledge and our power wouldn’t they have to have an interest in who runs this country? I bet if I held up Fox News as a source of unbiased opinion on Australian politics you’d disagree. Why should Australian or British journalists, who tend to hold the same views on common domestic issues as American journalists, view American foreign policy any differently?
Finally, exit polls say the primary issue in the Republican defeat was corruption. I won’t defend them there, they deserved to be hit on that score. I wish there was a better alternative to turning the country over to the party of Alcee Hastings (removed from the federal bench for perjury and bribery) and William Jefferson (in whose freezer the FBI discovered $100,000 in alleged bribe money).
November 15, 2006 at 10:22 AM #40034AnonymousGuest
bgates, it sounds like you are intent on hanging on to a sinking ship, that is your right.
The Iraq was is clearly the main thing that sunk the Republicans, the scandals only affected a few races. Like I said, we’ll see in the next two years how many Republicans start to publicly criticise the war, and at a minimum the running of the war. Side note: When nine retired generals came out last year to call for Rummy’s firing, did that not send a message??
You completely missed my point on the foreign press. The point is they have no interest or affiliation with American party politics (Rep vs democrat) so their opinions are unbiased from that perspective. EVERYTHING regarding US politics you read in this country has to be taken with a grain of salt due to party affiliations, etc. In Australia, for example, their opinions on American politics are at least honest and direct, not swayed by those influences.
November 15, 2006 at 10:44 AM #40038
It may be clear to you, but it wasn’t to CNN, whose exit polls “showed that 42 percent of voters called corruption an extremely important issue in their choices at the polls, followed by terrorism at 40 percent, the economy at 39 percent and the war in Iraq at 37 percent.” I’m sure I’m not as smart as you think you are, but even my meager counting skills put Iraq in 4th place in that list.
I’m glad you threw in that side note. The New York Times managed to interview a couple of those retired generals. Guess what? They want to continue the war, and they want more troops.
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve …There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government.
Yet somehow media coverage before the election convinced even sophisticated people like yourself that the generals’ position was closer to the Democrats’ than to the administration’s. Do you still think their recommendations are sacrosanct, now that you know what they are? Do you still trust the New York Times as much?
I didn’t miss your point on the foreign press. Your writing isn’t so bad, it’s your reasoning. Australian journalists have views on topics like global warming, free trade, the war on terror, etc. Their views tend to go in lockstep with those of self-styled free thinkers the world over. They can identify which American political party better matches their own views, and color their writing correspondingly. To the extent an Australian paper is critical of John Howard, who’s a strong conservative, it will be critical of Bush.
Or do you turn to FNC to find out about Paris?
November 15, 2006 at 10:55 AM #40042AnonymousGuest
the foreign press has no interest of affilation with american party politics?? How can you say that as their home countries have a vested interest in our political process, to install politicians more inclined to their best interests? Why do their citizens, companies and governments funnel support to those who serve their purposes? For example do you really think the Saudi prince donated to the Clinton presidential library (and others) just because he loves libraries? And that is only a very simplistic view it goes much farther. Wow. Now that is short sighted view.
They constantly interfere and if you question the “truth” or “accuracy” of the american press you have to look even harder at theirs (foreign press)
November 15, 2006 at 11:22 AM #40046AnonymousGuest
wtf, your logic and supporting references are excellent. Keep up the good work.
bg, you stayed away too long; thanks for returning to the forum and for renewing the fight for even-keeled, logical interpretation/analysis.
November 15, 2006 at 11:48 AM #40048AnonymousGuest
“I have little interest in the “worlds” opinion of us”. That attitude is the fundamental problem with Bush and his chronies. Unfortunately, America is not “All Powerful” as you would like to belive, that is a very arrogant attitude.
We may be the worlds richest nation, and still have the most powerful military, but the gap is shrinking. Particularly in military might. Barring nukes we do not have the firepower to win a full scale war without allied/coalition support. We don’t have the manpower nor do we have the equipment
You guys have no clue about the military. So maybe the reason we failed in Iraq is that we didn’t send enough troops. Well I know several National guadsmen who have already served two 1-year tours over there, and these people are not even active-duty. In fact over 40% of the troops were Guard and Reserve at one time (don’t know current stats). And the Army, Marine Corps and Navy have all dipped into the IRR to send troops over there (IRR is non drilling reservists, it is very rare for them to be called up).
So if we didn’t send enough troops, and we had to rely so heavily on the Guard/Reserve and even pull people out of the IRR, then how do you think we could send more troops??? Are you willing to have a draft over this dumbass war? Well, maybe if we would have gotten support from the world and had a coalition of some significance, we could have sent enough troops to win this thing. But we didn’t, therefore it is a failure by any measure.
November 15, 2006 at 11:58 AM #40049
We did have a big coalition for Afghanistan, by the way. Worth noting in those stats is that everyone’s favorite whipping-boys the French sent the largest contingent of troops after the US. We are all Americans, if anyone remembers that…
November 15, 2006 at 12:56 PM #40055
CONCHO, you’re wrong. According to your own link, the French sent ‘4500 including 3500 for the Marine Nationale’, or navy. given that Afghanistan is 500+ miles from any body of water, I’d consider that 3500 less than significant.
Your other link, to the disingenuous ‘we are all Americans’ editorial, doesn’t make it 3 paragraphs before blaming the US for all the sins of the world, up to and including bin Laden.
November 15, 2006 at 1:05 PM #40057
deadzone is right. Republicans will soon be coming out of the closet. The fact that Jim Baker (who’s not even a government official) is talking to Iranian diplomats in New York is a clear sign that something is in the works.
We normalized relations with China in 1971 and pulled out of Vietnam in 1972. Something similar will happen in Iraq. Perhaps we’ll normalize relations with Iran and Syria?
The neo-cons gambled for world dominance. It was a bold move but the gamble didn’t pay off and now the Republican party has to pay off the gambling debts.
November 15, 2006 at 1:18 PM #40059AnonymousGuest
“We normalized relations with China in 1971 and pulled out of Vietnam in 1972. Something similar will happen in Iraq. Perhaps we’ll normalize relations with Iran and Syria”
The timing coincides but thats pretty much it. And it doesn’t mean it was the right thing to do in either case.
Comparing that past scenario to our current dilemma is apples to oranges at best. If we did repeat vietnam withdrawal in Iraq the results would be the same wholesale slaughter while power is solidified then the re-education purges. Read some history on what happened after we left Vietnam and the surrounding areas. But then maybe you have a Pol-Pot tshirt to go with your Che Guevera one.
Give up the neo-con gambled for world dominance crap. I think you are way too smart to actually buy into that, at least I assume so. That mentality sounds like “the vast right wing conspiracy” mantra. I hear those and see the tinfoil sales going up.
November 15, 2006 at 1:35 PM #40061
bgates wrote: “CONCHO, you’re wrong. According to your own link, the French sent ‘4500 including 3500 for the Marine Nationale’, or navy. given that Afghanistan is 500+ miles from any body of water, I’d consider that 3500 less than significant”
I’m sure our US sailors reading this blog will appreciate your comment that Navy troops are insignificant in ground wars like Afghanistan and Iraq.
And yes, we did fund, train, and equip the Taliban as well as Osama and his goons during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The article I referenced didn’t “blame” the US for the 9/11 attacks, it merely pointed out that one of our useful monsters had come back to bite us. Saddam was another of those useful monsters.
November 15, 2006 at 2:17 PM #40069
CONCHO, I’m pretty sure any sailor reading this little exchange is going to take my side over yours. Saddam wasn’t a US creation, anymore than Osama. They chose anti-Americanism of their own free will. There was never any American funding of Osama, and your link doesn’t say anything to the contrary. Your French friends say that 9/11 would never have happened without American support of Osama. That’s blaming us.
November 15, 2006 at 2:51 PM #40071
I wrote something here but I have deleted it. This is all so silly. Let’s all grow up and stop posting to these stupid threads.
November 15, 2006 at 12:33 PM #40052AnonymousGuest
no, it’s an attitude that means I will do what is in my and my countrys best interest. It’s only arrogant as it’s not you speaking it.
You still miss the point – currently we are the big dog on the block why should we act contrary to what serves us best? Think of it this way, the Dems have control of the house and senate but gee, it would be swell if you Dems follow the republican agenda.
There are alot of things I am clueless about. Military isn’t one of them unless you ask my wife, but I digress.
As I stated previously, waging a limited war is a contradiction. War is an atrocity, and going into a war with limitations on how it is waged (beyond the Geneva conventions) is STUPID. What does that mean? It means once we made the decision to go we should have entered Iraq with a campaign of total war. It was short-sighted to enter into a “limited” conflict and not wind up as an occupying force.
The majority of reservists and guardsmen came into Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, most of the initial combat was done by front line troops from all services. Yes, our military is short of regulars, thus the necessity of calling up the Reservists and multiple and/or extended tours. And I will say big mistake by the fact our people aren’t trained to be policemen/women.
Of course our military understaffing goes back to previous administration, not the current one but that is a discussion for a different day.
As it stands we sent enough troops and equipment there to wage a full-scale conflict and “win” (though thats an oxymoron in war)of course you would see the country destroyed like the german cities in WWII. But whiskeytangofoxtrot we’d be in a rebuilding stage instead of a policing stage.
The world looks out for their best interests, yet you make it seem arrogant that we do for ours. You obviously are intellegent I just don’t see how you refuse to look at it from another perspective.
So before you go there no, not a republican, not a conservative and certainly not a war-monger, as I said it’s (war)an atrocity the ultimate atrocity, but when it becomes inevitable Cry ‘Havoc’ and let slip the dogs of war. By the way been there, done that and probably will be there again.
November 15, 2006 at 1:06 PM #40058AnonymousGuest
WTF, you are basically validating my primary points. The war was poorly planned, poorly executed and poorly managed.
There were not enough troops to get the job done. We had no coalition, which compounded the troop problem. And more fundamentally, our military is not designed for this type of occupation. The shift to a lighter, leaner high tech military has been ongoing for many years. In fact this was one of Rummy’s primary goals as secdef.
You can’t blame Clinton on our smaller active duty as this has been the trend for a long time and is continuing under Bush. More fundamentally, the Adminstration has no direct impact on military size. The President is in charge of the miltary but he does not make the budget, that is congress job.
So bottom line, whether you agree on the reasons to go to war or not, there is no debate that the planning and execution of the war has been a total failure. And the President is Commander in Chief, the number one leader of the military. As a result, he bears 100% responsibility for its successes and failures. Many of the Bush apologists refuse to admit that.
November 15, 2006 at 12:49 PM #40054
The gap is shrinking? Who’s catching up? It’s ludicrous to say we don’t have the firepower to win a full scale war. We do, and we’re not in one at the moment. Counterinsurgency is not what the Army is built to do at the moment. The way o free up manpower is to ditch the Cold War setup and reorganize into smaller, lighter units. Which Rumsfeld was doing.
What would count as a coalition of some significance? We had Britain and Australia, plus smaller contingents from dozens of countries. Who’s missing that would make it ‘significant’? Aren’t you ashamed of your arrogance calling a coalition of two UN Security Council members plus dozens of other sovereign states insignificant?
Was the war against Japan a failure? That was the US, UK, and Australia as well.
November 15, 2006 at 2:14 PM #40068AnonymousGuest
Coalition? Come on bgates, the % of casualties suffered by our coalition partners is on the order of 5% (US 95%). Do you consider that a significant coalition? What are the UK and Australia doing, giving us “emotional support”?
And yes, the gap is shrinking. For one thing, the US definitely doesn’t want to mess with China. The Chinese Army is on the order of 1.5 million troops compared to the US less than 500K. They also have significant technology including missiles and nukes.
November 15, 2006 at 2:21 PM #40070
Deadzone, what are the Chinese doing in this discussion? You were making a poor argument that the US didn’t have enough coalition support to win a war; if you’re now claiming that the US can’t win a war without a Chinese alliance, you’ve gone from poor to laughable.
Your disparagement of dozens of other nations who support the US during time of war would be laughable if it weren’t near-treasonous. Yes, I’m questioning your patriotism. Gratuituous insults of allies serve no purpose beyond weakening those alliances, and that’s not the action of a patriot.
Why are you so excited by the size of the Chinese army?
November 15, 2006 at 2:44 PM #40072AnonymousGuest
However you try to demean it, it is a coalition. While I agree it would’ve been nice to see more support in the way of troops; it didn’t happen and useless at this time to complain. In today’s world though it does mean something to have someone take our side publically – they take a risk just by doing so.
The size of the chinese army is of little consequence unless we wind up in a ground war there…. or here (logistical nightmare so unlikely). The technological gap is closing but, we are still a good ten+ years ahead and a significant part of their progress was stolen or purchased from (surprise! us!, thank you Billy C. but you got a swell library and maybe you can be the first first husband).
Which brings up another point… diplomacy…. If you can follow the news – regardless of where you get it from, it’s utilized in todays world as a mere stalling tactic. The intent from most of the nations in this world is to try to hamstring and keep us preoccupied with false promises and agenda until the time comes that they can slap us and get away with it. We keep coming to the tables and we get nowhere, then we get criticized for obstucting the process as we fail to capitulate fully to the other sides requests.
November 15, 2006 at 2:54 PM #40073AnonymousGuest
I am not claiming that the Chinese military is superior to the US, it is just an example that the gap is closing.
Are you guys happy with a coalition that only supported 5% of casualties?
November 15, 2006 at 3:16 PM #40075AnonymousGuest
like I said it would be nice if we had more support. To sum it up, it’s someones sons or daughters, moms or dads etc. that are gone and that saddens me regardless.
Concho, I concur as far as; as interesting of a discussion this is, it’s not why we are here (at Piggingtons). But it’s not silly or useless, mental exercise never is. Even for the challenged such as myself.
I just had an epithany! Powayseller isn’t from Poway and not a she, it’s really Ahmadinejad keeping us distracted and not seeing the true agenda.
November 15, 2006 at 9:11 PM #40094
“Are you guys happy with a coalition that only supported 5% of casualties?”
Well, a good number of American leftists are aiding the terrorists, the
“coalition” of their side (the terrorists) suffered 100% casualties. The
left must be very happy… They just found the really helping coalition.
November 15, 2006 at 9:30 PM #40096
Deadzone isn’t claiming the Chinese military is superior to the US, just saying that we “wouldn’t want to mess with” them, pointing out they have a 3x manpower advantage, and some technology besides.
Deadzone, remind me how China fits into your argument that the US didn’t have enough coalition support? I was under the impression that the vast majority of coalition casualties were being suffered by the Iraqi state. So, you consider the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Iraq to be not significant, at least from a military standpoint. Would you like to add to your list of countries you consider insignificant, or go back to criticizing my arrogance?
November 15, 2006 at 9:57 PM #40098AnonymousGuest
bg, read the posts and you’ll see why I mention China. Just an example that we are not the only powerful military in the world, and coalition support is a good thing to have.
Those “coalition” countries are insignificant to the Iraq war effort. They account for less than 10% of the troops and less than 10% of the casualties. In case you flunked math, that means the USA has the burden of over 90% of troops and casualties.
Not sure why you are counting Iraq casualties as coalition, since Iraq is the country we invaded and are occupying.
November 15, 2006 at 10:12 PM #40099
I read the posts. Like I said before, your arguments are poor, so you need to restate them to make them intelligible.
That’s a clever comment about flunking math. You do go on about the intellectual superiority of people who think like you. Do you have any kind of credential or evidence of your brainpower? Besides your posts, of course. I suppose you could let those speak for themselves.
It’s just that they don’t speak well of you.
Because you argue so very, very badly.
When I said Iraqi casualties, I was referring to the military and police of the current Iraqi government, which is an ally of ours. But I must give you credit – Iraq is indeed the coutry we invaded. A fine point. One of your best so far, I’d say.
November 15, 2006 at 10:46 PM #40102AnonymousGuest
I have no way prove to you my brainpower. In fact, all I can say is that I am intelligent enough to figure out the obvious, which is that the Iraq war is a clusterf*&k and utter failure. However, this doesn’t prove much because a monkey could figure that out.
So, I won’t say that I am particularly smart, but I can say without a doubt that anyone who truly believes the war is going well is extraordinarily dumb.
November 16, 2006 at 6:51 AM #40105lostkittyParticipant
JG – take a closer look at that link you posted. On the left there is a “multimedia” graph and link. If you open it it clearly spells out that men’s higher incidences of heart disease may be related to higher percentage of tobacco and alcohol use. I bet if we searched for studies on eating habits, men would show higher percentages of overeating and excessive meat eating as well. All directly linked to heart disease… no mystery there!
In regards to incresing spending on women’s health issues research… well.. the pendulum swings. Historically, medical research did not even consider women. Almost all research was based on males, medical and psychological scientific research… so get over it. I entirely disagree with you…. Disproportionate coverage of women’s breast cancer research vs. men’s heart disease research does not equate to a “liberal” slant in scientific journals.
November 16, 2006 at 7:22 AM #40106
Finally we can agree on something:
I won’t say deadzone is particularly smart, either.
I’m still curious about this ‘utter failure’ talk. When did it become obvious, even to someone of your admittedly limited intelligence, that the war was lost? What made you believe that? It can’t be because of casualty levels, which are historically low for a war. It can’t be because of mistakes, because there are mistakes in every war. It can’t be because we’re still fighting, because we’ve won war that we fought longer. It can’t be for lack of coalition support, because we’ve won wars fought completely unilaterally.
But you have no doubts in your mind. Having decided on the end state you want to see, you have no interest in competing theories or contrary data. You act exactly like your own caricature of the administration.
November 16, 2006 at 8:59 AM #40119AnonymousGuest
bgates, based on your silly arguments you clearly know nothing about military or history. Which wars are you referring to that were won unilaterally? Certainly no U.S involved wars in this century.
If I have to convince you that the Iraq war (it’s not really a war by the way) is a failure then you are in the minority. The majority of American citizens realize it is a failure. If you want to keep burying your head in the sand that is your businees. Whatever makes you sleep better at night.
November 16, 2006 at 9:23 AM #40120
Unilateral US victories include the Spanish-American War, Moro Rebellion, Mexican-American War, and War of 1812.I think I can throw the Civil War on that list, too. Likewise the Indian Wars of the late 19th century. These are all armed conflicts that the US won on its own.
For that matter, the Korean Conflict was every bit as unilateral as Iraq is (vast majority of casualties on our side suffered by indigenous allies, vast majority of remainder suffered by America, 5-10% by other allies) and that wasn’t a defeat.
Which argument did you find silly? Was it the US won no wars unilaterally ‘in this century’? (Did you mean to say ‘in the past 100 years’? That would look a little more reasonable.)
Yes, you do have to convince me that the Iraq war is a failure. Or rather I have not yet been convinced. You’re clearly not up to it, since you prefer insults to argument. I prefer both, but then I have both the ability to argue and the presence of facts on my side, advantages you lack.
This is fun, though – please tell me how I’ve made it clear I know nothing about history. Awe me with further display of your intellectual acumen.
November 16, 2006 at 10:22 AM #40122AnonymousGuest
We won in Korea? Then why are there still two of them?
Guess it all depends on how you define “winning”, right?
Are you willing to ask the Iraqi people if they are better off than they were 5 years ago? And more importantly are you willing to listen to their answer? Do they have a liberal bias–no, just silence.
Woo-hoo. We are winning* in Iraq!
*Definitions vary. See White House or bgates for details.
November 16, 2006 at 10:58 AM #40127
Hey there kristinejm. There are still two Koreas because, as I said in my post, we weren’t defeated. If we were, the peninsula would be united under the Kim family. Ask somebody from South Korea if they would be better off that way.
I’m very interested in what the Iraqi people think. So are others who have the resources to ask them. The internet has things called ‘search engines’ which can help to find answers on these topics. I used one called Google to find this. I don’t know much about the group, other than one of its advisors was Clinton’s NSC advisor. So it’s not affiliated with the administration. According to that survey, 61% of Iraqis think deposing Saddam was worth it. What do you think of their answer?
To be honest, I’m not sure that we’re winning. My major argument in this thread has been against the notion that we’ve already lost. We haven’t, but saying we have makes it more likely that we eventually will – it boosts the morale of our enemies and disheartens our allies.
It’s ok that you made some little mistakes reading my post. Don’t be embarassed to call a grown-up over to your computer to help you read the longer sentences. I think it’s great you’re making an effort.
November 16, 2006 at 11:35 AM #40132AnonymousGuest
The point of the thread is that Iraq war is a failure. The war supposedly ended in May 2003. Since then nearly 3000 American troops have died and over 20,000 injured. The occupation was not properly planned for, the adminstration totally underestimated the impact of occupying the country.
So, if your definition of winning the war was removing Hussein, then Bravo we won, we can all feel proud of ourselves. Meanwhile, the troops who are over there, and their families see a very different reality. Americans continue to die every day and yet very little has actually been accomplished.
By the way, who are our allies that are being disheartened by us talking realistically about the war? The rest of the world already knows this is a failure. People like you who sugarcoat things may temporarily boost morale of people here who can’t read the newspaper, but don’t think you are fooling the rest of the world or our allies. Additionally, most of the US allies were never involved in this war, or they pulled out a long time ago.
November 16, 2006 at 11:56 AM #40135
Everyone I’ve talked to who’s been over there, and most of the guys I’ve read, are more optimistic than you. What’s you definition of losing the war? Who did win, since we lost?
What is being accomplished is a slow process. Building a civil state from the ground up takes time. Building professional police and military from the ground up is slow. The US Army has over 200 years of tradition, and can train its people in a very secure environment at West Point, and it still takes 4 years to get the lowest level officer ready to go out in the field – at which point he gets led around by a senior noncom with several times as much experience. The American government took seven years to junk the Articles of Confederation, and they weren’t being shot at. Iraq has a written constitution, its government has broad popular support, and its enforcement ability is growing – all thanks to the efforts of American servicemen, including those whose graves you spit on by saying little has been accomplished.
It’s not over. It will be if we give up and go home. The Americans can go home. Our allies in the Iraqi government are home, and will still have to deal with the terrorists, the criminals, the militias, and the Iranians no matter what we do. If the Iraqi people know we will help them as long as they want it, but will leave when asked, their resolve will be strengthened. People like yourself, who would rather hurt Republicans than help people trying to establish something like a free country, make it more likely that our allies try to cut a deal with our enemies before they’re abandoned by us. That would leave Iraq and us worse off.
You have an interesting definition of ‘allies’, if you think most US allies were never involved. Who are you talking about?
November 16, 2006 at 12:52 PM #40138AnonymousGuest
I’m still waiting for you to list the allies that are being disheartened by our criticism of the war. In fact, why don’t you list some allies that actually have troops in Iraq right now?
In reality the “war” ended in May 2003. What is happening now is unwinnable by a military because we don’t have a clear enemy or a clear objective. Why don’t you explain your brillint plan to win. In fact, why don’t you go over there and shed some of your own blood as part of this brilliant plan of yours.
I have nothing against Republicans. The problem is nutjobs like you who try to turn everything into a partisan debate, or use labels like “liberal”. Your type listens to way too much Rush Limbaugh. When are you going to learn that the world is not black and white, that most people are not extremists? In fact, I have voted Republican more than Democrat in Presidential elections.
The criticism of the war and Bush is not about Republicans and Democrats. You just don’t get it.
November 16, 2006 at 1:08 PM #40141AnonymousGuest
dz, Iraq is absolutely winnable.
It will be very interesting to see how things play out with the new Congress, Baker and gang, and Bush. We’ve all read today that there may be a big push to tip this thing the favor of stability, with 20K troops being shipped over to help.
Far from lost, unless we go with the Democrat ‘staged redeployment in 4-6 months.’
November 16, 2006 at 2:57 PM #40154
Deadzone, I appreciate your wish to see me bleed. It confirms something I had suspected about your character. Thanks very much; rather than wishing the same in return, I hope you live long enough to gain some wisdom and grow to regret making that sort of comment. Since you won’t bother answering any of my questions, I’ll keep my answers to yours short: Our chief ally in Iraq is Iraq. If we stay and help them, together we can beat the various factions that want to take the place over. If we leave, the people who had supported us will be killed as collaborationists. If I were an Iraqi working with the Americans, I would be very troubled by talk of giving up and going home.
Deadzone, your hatred of Bush and anyone who supports him is the only partisan thing in our debate. I don’t like Bush’s stance on immigration, his campaign appearances at Bob Jones, his failure to veto bloated budgets, or his position on gay marriage. I’ve voted for Nader as many times as I’ve voted for Bush and his father combined. My defense of an aggressive foreign policy to spread freedom around the globe, the kind of thing Truman and JFK tried to do, isn’t based on some love for the Republican party, you narrow-minded hate-filled hack.
Kristine, what goes around comes around. Since you can’t take it, you shouldn’t be trying to dish it out.
November 16, 2006 at 4:53 PM #40159AnonymousGuest
bg, my mention of shedding blood was figurative, not literal so no need to go postal. You sound like a very frustred person.
However, if you feel it is so important for America to spread freedom around the globe, then why aren’t you campaigning for an invasion of Cuba? How about N. Korea? Why do you belive freedom is more important in Iraq than in Cuba? Why aren’t you on the front lines if it is so important to you?
I don’t hate Bush, just realize he is incompetent and his adminstration screwed up the war in Iraq and particularly how the war has been managed. Nine retired generals complained about the management of the war including the current General in command was in today’s paper admitting there weren’t enough trips in the beginning to win this thing. That is proof that the war was mis-managed.
November 16, 2006 at 5:19 PM #40161AnonymousGuest
dz, American blood is too precious to go save the world. Cuba is no military threat to us; no need to invade/blockade.
North Korea has missles and nukes, and, potentially, an interest in sending them our way (or, more likely, selling them to Iran, to distribute to Al Qaeda or Hezbollah). But, diplomacy (with the stick of economic sanctions) can work, if we can get the South Koreans and Chinese to play along.
Lots of generals disagree with Presidents; big deal. Remember that guy, MacArthur, and how Truman had to deal with him? Do you think Truman mismanaged Korea? How many generals did Lincoln have to fire before he got Grant? Did you think Lincoln mismananaged the Civil War?
Unanimity? No disagreement? Never will happen, dz. The military has lots of bright folks, and there are lots of differences of opinion (600 ship Navy vs. 300 ship Navy, etc.). That’s why we use majorities, supermajorities, and executives (to decide, after input) in government and business.
Abizaid has his opinion; Tommy Franks had his. Tommy Franks kicked a**, and did in weeks what the Brits and Russians spent years trying to do, and failed, then repeated the trick in Iraq. Astounding, it was.
November 16, 2006 at 5:34 PM #40163AnonymousGuest
Invading a country with virtually no military is not a great accomplishment, nor is it a true demonstration of our military might. In 2003, Iraq had no Air Force or air defenses to speak of.
November 16, 2006 at 5:34 PM #40164AnonymousGuest
Invading a country with virtually no military is not a great accomplishment, nor is it a true demonstration of our military might. In 2003, Iraq had no Air Force or air defenses to speak of.
November 16, 2006 at 6:27 PM #40168
“Invading a country with virtually no military is not a great accomplishment”
War, invasion of countries, other military actions are not part of a silly
pissing contest. They’re serious moves by grown adults. There is a long
list of American military successes, very short list of failures. History is
not the past three or five years. Wait and see how history will judge
George Bush’s vision for the Arab world. His vision, spreading
democracy, needs to be played out. Deadzone and others, do you really
want to loose the war? Are you anxious to see a couple of million dead
Iraqis? Do you have high hopes about the success of Iran’s nuclear
program? You guys, really want to see the destruction of Israel? If you
think, the situation was not serious enough before the invasion of Iraq,
wait and see how serious it can become. It can reach the point, when
the only solution is to nuke the whole Arab world. (After seeing a dozen
nukes destroying vital cities and several million innocent people of the western world.) Are you leftists are insane?
November 16, 2006 at 7:08 PM #40169AnonymousGuest
deadzone – On what authority do you speak of military matters? Is it lost on you that the massive Soviet military lost over 15,000 men trying to do what we accomplished in 3 months in Afghanistan? And to speak of the Iraqi military as some piss ant force is even more ignorant. Our military accomplishments during the invasion were nothing short of spectacular by any measure, and if you talk to the troops you will quickly discover that they weren’t fighting with kid gloves. Moreover, consider what the troops thought they were in for during the first and second Gulf Wars. Tens of thousands of American losses were projected during the first war, and nothing short of a chemical and biological nightmare was assured during the most recent invasion.
November 16, 2006 at 8:19 PM #40171AnonymousGuest
Great points, L_T and juice.
dz, read the Medal of Honor citation for Sgt. Paul Smith:
No Iraqi Air Force involved, but it was a determined group of fighters that he faced, fought, and protected fellow soldiers from. May Sgt. Smith rest in peace.
There are lots of stories like this from this war.
Hey, the housing market's still up; it may never come down. Hey, we haven't killed all of the Islamo-Fascists; maybe we can't win this war.
Wrong on both counts.
November 16, 2006 at 8:55 PM #40175AnonymousGuest
Just like the Soviets in Afghanistan, we are unprepared and unequipped to fight a guerrila war. It doesn’t matter how you try to spin it, justify it, or rationalize it, it is a dead end.
We are not leveraging any of our tactical or strategic advantages in this goatrope.
November 16, 2006 at 10:20 PM #40178AnonymousGuest
so what is it you want dz? you want us to pull out and run?and stop the invasion rhetoric even most liberals acknowledged we liberated Iraq until things stalled and they saw a chance to release their BSD. Is that how you live your life and support what is important to you, when things don’t go according to plan or get tough you pick up your toys and go home? Do you have any concept of the genocide that took place in s.e. asia after that politically expedient retreat took place? Do you care? You’re correct and we aren’t using our forces in a effective manner, how can we? The politicians are running the war not the professionals. Not to mention the undue influence of public opinion. Let me ask you, what is our type of government?
November 16, 2006 at 10:59 PM #40180
dz, the statement “why don’t you go over there and shed some of your own blood” is in no way figurative, and I have no interest trying to communicate with someone dishonest enough to claim that it is.
November 16, 2006 at 1:09 PM #40142AnonymousGuest
“It’s ok that you made some little mistakes reading my post. Don’t be embarassed to call a grown-up over to your computer to help you read the longer sentences. I think it’s great you’re making an effort.”
You are a patronizing asshole.
November 16, 2006 at 2:07 PM #40151
bgates is certainly very knowledgeable and well-informed. Her(?) defense of GWB and the Iraq War is like the performance of a good attorney defending her powerful (possibly guilty) client. Think Kenneth Lay. The court of public opinion has already spoken but the trial is still going on and the jury won’t deliberate for a while.
Since we’re “in court,” let’s define what “win” means. Based on the expectations created by the Bush Administration, we can probably agree that a win in Iraq means that 1) Iraq retains its territorial pre-war integrity/unity, 2) Iraq develops a multi-party democratic government, 3) the sectarian violence stops, 4) Iraq develops a “prosperous” economy where the per-capita GDP is at least equal to that of Iran, 5) American troops are reduced to less than 10,000.
I can accept that we shouldn’t say that we lost the Iraq War since it’s still going on. However, we are certainly not yet winning. The war itself is not over so it can’t be called a failure. But, so far, the implementation of the war has been a failure.
Can the Administration rescue the war and turn it into a win by their own definition? I doubt it. They are going to redefine what win means and reset the public’s expectations. That’s probably what Republican strategists are working on right now.
The real estate bubble will be still be deflating a few years from now. I think that Iraq will be over before the real estate bottom. So, in a few years, Piggington will still be around and we’ll be here to start a thread on whether we won or lost.
In the mean time, we can continue to debate how the war is being fought. The tactics for winning the war have so far turned disastrous. Bush has two more years to see his strategy to fruition. The problem is that his strategy is democracy, unity, prosperity, they-stand-up-we-stand-down rhetoric. What kind of strategy is that? How can the strategy be the same as “winning” itself?
November 15, 2006 at 10:42 AM #40039AnonymousGuest
The only failure in this war is letting politicians run it.
You can’t wage a half-war or a quarter-war like our leaders continue to do. The terms compassionate war or a limited war are contradictions. War is perhaps the ultimate human atrocity, unfortunately at this stage in human consciousness it still seems to be a necessity.
I have little interest in the “worlds” opinion of us. those critical have little foundation to base their criticisms upon i.e. the pot calling the kettle black. We are a sovereign nation. It’s seems any country in the world is “entitled” to their sovereignity except the U.S. We have no allies in this world, being the richest and most powerful nation at this time makes us the biggest target, everyone wants what we have and are biding their time as to how and when they can take it. International law? It doesnt’ supercede any true sovereign nations laws and it shouldn’t.
The Republicans in this election got what they deserved, they lost the elections all by themselves the Dems just reaped the benefits of the Republican failure.
November 15, 2006 at 3:04 PM #40074
I really don’t feel that this is a “silly” thread. Some people may have resorted to name calling, but overall the discussion has been insightful. Debate is useful, and it’s nice to see people actually thinking about the issues at hand, rather than taking the typical American “La la la, I can’t hear you, I’ll pretend that nothing is wrong and I’ll just keep buying and increasing my debt to make myself feel superior to my neighbors!” stance, complete with fingers in ears.
By the way Concho, you aren’t obligated to read every thread on the website. The title obviously let’s potential readers know that the thread has nothing to do with housing, and if you’d prefer to limit your reading experience to housing threads, then I suggest that you do just that. If you feel this thread is silly, then don’t read it.
November 17, 2006 at 11:34 AM #40197bubba99Participant
What I haven’t seen in this thread surprises me. No mention of N. Korea, and Iran and the bomb. While we have had all of our attention and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan, N. Korea has developed the bomb. IAEC has found Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) in an Iran dump site. This means they probably have a heavy water reactor that can develop a couple of bombs per year and our Intel groups completely missed it. Next year they are adding 3000 centrifuges which can add another 2 or 3 bombs per year. Who do you think they will use them on?
Not Israel because they want Palestine back for the Palestinians – that leave us. It is a small leap from the fission bomb to a Thermo-nuclear bomb with un-imaginable devastation.
Back in 1956 the US tested a device with the “Apache” design. It was a 3-part bomb expected to yield 700 kilotons of energy. The actual yield was 1.85 megatons. I mention this bomb because in 1956 it was cutting edge, and one of the first to overcome the need for liquid hydrogen to create the fusion process with very stable 6LiDeterorid. The first bomb was 40 feet long and 10 feet wide, the Apache was small enough to fit in a car trunk 3 ft x 6 ft. This was all very secret 50 years ago, and now the techniques are “well known” anyone could build this bomb if they had access to Plutonium or HEU. 1.85 megatons are enough to crater the greater San Diego area. Make no mistake they are coming, and we are not prepared. One device can destroy everyone and everything we hold dear.
This group of supposed hawks has been asleep at the helm, while our real threats have moved fifty years ahead in nuclear technology.
November 17, 2006 at 12:27 PM #40201AnonymousGuest
Exactly right bubba. And in addition to N. Korea, what is the US response going to be when China finally decides to take Taiwan back (after the Olympics are over)?
This Iraq nonsense is a total diversion from the real war on Al Queda and the real threats to our security. Some people on this board just can’t see the forrest for the trees. Instead of using sensible rationale, they prefer to simplify everything to the extent that anybody who disagrees with Bush is just a crazy liberal who hates America.
November 17, 2006 at 4:02 PM #40218
“And in addition to N. Korea, what is the US response going to be when China finally decides to take Taiwan back (after the Olympics are over)?”
Ask Jack Murtha, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi
and Barbara Boxer. I’m sure they know better…
November 17, 2006 at 4:15 PM #40219AnonymousGuest
It doesn’t matter who is in charge at this point, our Army is so overburdened in Iraq we don’t have the ability to respond to any major crisis.
November 17, 2006 at 4:32 PM #40220
“It doesn’t matter who is in charge at this point, our Army is so overburdened in Iraq we don’t have the ability to respond to any major crisis.”
Did you know? We have a few more airplanes, ships, missiles, even a few nukes… just in case.
Instead of being a great military mind, I let the adults handle all
the military affairs.
November 17, 2006 at 7:44 PM #40230
We’ve not had all attention on Iraq; there have been 6-party negotiations involving NK for years, plus an American military presence on the border. North Korea is a problem that affects some of our allies at least as much as us; South Korea and Japan have strong incentives to work with us there. I don’t think the administration approach is very likely to succeed, but I can’t think of a better one.
Some on the left like to accuse the administration and its supporters of arrogance, but they have the assumption that it is within the power of the United States to produce any outcome it desires if only it acts correctly. That’s not how the world works. There are other independent actors on the planet, with interests opposed to ours; sometimes there is no good way to stop them. North Korea may be like that.
Iran may be too far gone as well. Here again the administration has forgone military action and relied on negotiation and our allies, the exact strategy many bad-faith leftist critics urged for Iraq. Unlike in Korea, we have no allies willing or able to impose consequences on our opponent. I think the admin should have expanded the ground war years ago; instead Iran and Syria have served as safe havens for our enemies. Our effort in Iraq has suffered, and the danger from Iran has grown.
I can’t imagine options besides continued negotiation; increased military intervention; or surrender. The first and third will not reduce the risk from Iran, the second might. Bubba, do you have any other ideas?
November 17, 2006 at 8:23 PM #40231AnonymousGuest
Gutless South Koreans; just pretend the nuts to the north aren't going to hurt you. Thank goodness that we can rely upon the Japanese to fight. Only with such a credible threat will we be able to bring the North Koreans back from the brink.
November 18, 2006 at 8:04 AM #40249
Bgates, I always love your posts. They are so factual, reasoned and well done. Thanks!
November 18, 2006 at 10:31 AM #40254
bgates, I agree with most of what you said on your two latest posts (on this thread and on the Milton Friedman thread).
Did you get drunk (the Bgates impostor incident) and are now sober? (just joking).
I too beleive that America does a lot of good around the world and that we should help spread democracy. But we need to choose our battles carefully and not overreach.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.