What is the response to this?
I agree with people who say that we should have just went in Iraq and cleaned house. Of course, we could not do that because we had too many liberals and other world leaders saying that people would be mad at us if we were to mean in Iraq. We can't attack them on this religious holiday, we can't bomb any buildings that might have people in them...bla bla bla.
I don't even want to hear from Jim or any other liberal that they never said that.
That is what they do, they say something, then when it is proven what they thought was wrong and a failure, they simply say they never said it.
Now they say we should have had more troops. I am getting tired of listening to these double talk people. I have said from day one we go in Iraq and kick some ass...who cares what anyone else thinks...get the job done and people will not be mad for very long.
Now we have this mess still going on, and EVERYONE is mad....so the being nice thing at a time of war didn't work.
So what the hell do we do now?
Friday, November 24, 2006
Thanksgiving Horror: 161 Dead in Iraq
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Game,
This is one of your most absurd posts ever (and believe me, there are plenty to choose from). Where do I start?
Let's see, you don't want me to refute something that is so blatantly false and unfair that it is beyond reason. Liberals and other smart people who read and understood the history and politics of the Middle East and Iraq in particular were against the invasion of Iraq because everything, EVERYTHING that's happening in Iraq today was predicted. I read it in many magazine and newspaper articles pre-invasion.
"liberals and other world leaders saying that people would be mad at us if we were to mean in Iraq. We can't attack them on this religious holiday, we can't bomb any buildings that might have people in them"
I'll say it here: I didn't say that and nobody else I read said that. It is a false straw man.
And you keep saying "it is proven that they are wrong" while offering none of this proof.
"Now they say we should have had more troops." No game, before the invasion most of the military and the Secretary of State and General Shinsecki said that we needed more troops. If you read "Plan of Attack" or "Cobra II" or any of several books of the war plans, you will know that every military leader and planner involved was recommending more troops, but Rumsfeld would have none of it.
Bush is responsible for the worst foreign policy blunder in US history, but Rumsfeld is responsible for the distasterous execution of that policy.
"so the being nice thing at a time of war didn't work". What "being nice thing?"
"What the hell do we do now?" Well, yeah! George W. Bush recklessly got us into a HUGE mess. There are no good options. He should have thought that in the first place. That's what competent leaders do.
In August of 2005 I posted that it was only a matter of whether we wanted to be humiliated sooner or humiliated later. It's getting later and later.
what would algore have done? John Kerry?
Would that have been better.
Bush's mistake was to not go in and kick serious ass right away...
I am not sure the US can ever totally win another war with the liberal media and whimpy Democrats giving aid and comfort to the enemy from day one
Gore and Kerry done about what? Iraq? Well, since Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no operational connection to al-Qaeda or Bin Laden, since Iraq was a stable country acting as a buffer against Iran, its continuing enemy that we helped in fight, and as a buffer against Afghanistan, Gore would have properly heeded the wise counsel of the Department of State and his best military leaders and continued the effective containment of Hussein and Iraq. He instead would have used the treasure and best military and intelligence assets to search, find and destroy al-Qaeda and any other terrorists that were a threat to the US or its allies including removing the Taliban from Afghanistan.
You can't say otherwise with any proof because you have none. You only have your intense hatred of anything non-Bush.
And if I'm not mistaken, Bush DID go in and kick some serious ass right away. He attacked on March 19th and by May 1st he was declaring "Mission Accomplished." Unfortunately, Bush , Cheney, and Rumsfeld forgot that a failed state and an unstable middle east were just a few months of looting, broken instrastructure, and 300,000 unemployed Iraqi soldiers with automatic weapons away from a total debacle.
Invasions have consequences. Kicking butt requires thinking about what comes after.
Well, I sort of agree with Jim about lack of foresight. Though the blame should extend to those who gave the president authority to go to war. Without that authority, Bush would still have had the option of robust airstrikes against Hussein, which would have been effective at setting back any WMD program.
I disagree that economics is driving people in Iraq to violence. The cause is the Religion of Peace. They are slaughtering each other over ancient grievances and minute theological differences. It has even got to the point where they are calling each other "Jews," which is the most offensive thing you can call someone in Iraq.
In democratic epochs, people tend to ignore the influence of the individual, especially in a leadership capacity. There simply is not an Ataturk in Iraq today that can muscle Iraq in a modern direction, which leaves the field open to charismatic thugs like Muqtada al Sadr, who should have been martyred during his dumb uprising in 2004. Perhaps we need to get away from thinking in a determinist manner in general-- people aren't robots that are pre-programmed for democracy, nor are they ghosts animated by Marxist theories of economics.
I agree with you about those who voted for the AUMF. I think it was unconstitutional because it essentially handed the constitutional authority to declare war to the president instead of congress.
And here is a list of SOME (not all) of the Senators who voted AGAINST the AUMF:
Boxer, Feingold, Durbin, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, just to name a few.
There is no doubt that religion is a major factor in the Iraqi civil war. But the fact that so many people have no vested economic interest in a stable society because they have no jobs, little electricity, little running water makes them prone to frustration, violence, and of course revenge.
Game, I agree with Jim, you are making stuff up about the left making stuff up or denial or whatever gibberish you are trying to pass off here. The problem is you never HEARD it because you and others here didnt want to HEAR it. You were too busy being scared and ranting at people that opposed panic. You and your fellows panic has not served us well.
George Bush is the commander and chief and he has done whatever he wanted right along. He hasn't listened to the other side about a damned thing so don't go moving the blame somewhere else...now if you actually want to HEAR what I have to say...I think as I have said on my radio show, blog and this blog numerous times, we need to involve the arab league in the solution. They will not listen to westerners and if it spirals out of control it is their countries that could be just as screwed up by the confligration as any. Make it clear that if arabs don't want us there we will be happy to back off but it is then up to them to solve the problem. That's one thing. There is more, this is a brief and incomplete proposal but since this post proves your memory and attention span is short I will stop there for now.
I've seen a list of quotes from notable libs such as Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dean and others stating the need for regime change in Iraq including the use of military to do so. I'm not going to quibble about which said exactly what, only that they were for it. The difference is, it was all said during the Clinton administration. Go look it up. And here's a couple of other things predicted by the libs and "smart people":
The Afghans will thwart our efforts as they did the Russians (Taliban out of power)
The Iraqi army is a seasoned force that will prevent an easy time of deposing Sadam (do the words "spider hole" ring a bell?)
I recently linked to an assessment that explains the progress of coalition forces. Such progress was also predicted against. And I never tire of hearing about what certain military experts thought and how Bush and Rummie ignored them, as if they weren't hearing all sorts of suggestions. It's nice to have those guys to back up the Bush bashing, but he and Rummie didn't move without opposing viewpoints from others in the military. Currently, Abizaid still disagrees with the call for more troops. I guess he's no expert, is he? So it's, as Jim would say, bullshit that "every" military leader and planner believed more troops were necessary, just as it's bullshit that every scientist backs the Gore version of global warming.
Some more nonsense:
What Gore or Kerry would have done according to Jim. They would have done nothing, be it about Iraq, or about 9/11. They would have most likely followed the stupid plan of using civil authorities to solve the terrorist problem and kept us at risk as we were pre-9/11. It took Bush to do something serious to fight back. Dems had shown no stomach for the real work and you damn well know it.
Also, Iraq, as has been stated here and elsewhere, was far from stable with attacks on our planes, plans for assassination of our president, offering money for the murder of our allies' civilians, and the murder of his own people. His connections to terrorist groups have more evidence now but suspicions were rightly high. (Hard, cold evidence is only required by the courts. In espionage, far less is required to "know" what is reality.) You talk of threats to America and her allies. That would include Hamas, Hezbollah and others, some of whom are reported to have cells in here already. Without the intelligence gathering techniques employed by Bush and whined about by the NY Times and libs, just how would your boys fight these internal threats? And for the record, it is my understanding that that "Mission Accomplished" banner was already up on that ship for the accomplished mission of the ship and it's crew, not for the benefit of Bush. However, by that point in time, the overall mission was to depose Sadam, and that mission was indeed accomplished.
And for Ron, if Arabs won't listen to westerners, then how are we going to convince the Arab League to do anything? Make up your mind.
In general, there is no doubt in my mind that the decision to act in Iraq was correct. There's no one less asshole with two asshole sons in the world. The assholes that exist in that country have far less power than the assholes they replaced. And they face a government that, though still figuring things out, opposes much of what the assholes want to do. It is naive, childish and irresponsible to both ignore the threats of despots like Hussein and equally so to expect finite timespans for victory, no American deaths, no civilian deaths and no counter by the assholes. I think the biggest mistake by Bush was losing Rummie if by doing so his replacements move in a direction that enables the assholes to dig in deeper and build up their ranks. As of the moment following 9/11, we now are no better equipped to know how this whole thing will turn out. What I DO know, is that we need to stay in this fight and take the lead in doing so. No other country is capable of reducing terrorism to a level that doesn't threaten the world like us. With the Dems in control, I fear for our ability to maintain that dominance.
Shorter Marshall-We are the party of personal responsibility..but its their fault too!
"Shorter Marshall-We are the party of personal responsibility..but its their fault too!"
What in the wide, wide world of sports is that supposed to mean?
Post a Comment