The 1st ever open thread
I will try to do this once a quarter. For 1 week, all restrictions will come off for this thread. Everything will get posted, good, bad and indifferent. The comments in this thread may offend some people, so if you are offended easily, please read with caution.
My intent is to get some information and maybe learn something along the way, which I am ALWAYS open to. All comment moderation and restriction from anonymous users posting will be turned off...postings which may offend on other threads will STILL BE DELETED, but for this thread...take it away.
My question that I would like to see answered is this:
As someone who is not behind our president, our troops, our ongoing success in Iraq and strongly commited to impeaching President Bush (The greatest president of Modern times btw) where does your hatred for him as president come from and when did it start?
Ok...there it is, no holds barred, no restrictions, I would love to hear an answer for this because it may be the beginning of rational discourse.
For those who have admin privelage on my blog, please feel free to add questions to this thread.
posted by LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder @ 12:46
21 Comments:
Now you know damn well when a direct question is asked, "they" will not answer. ;-)
Yeah they might have to THINK.
Its worth a try isnt it?
Yes it is worth it...this is giving me an idea...hold on...LOL
Since I live in a VERY far left small town, let me try to answer your question based on what I've heard.
President Bush is part of a capitalistic pig dynasty that began with his father and we know will continue through, at least, to Jeb. They are only concerned about oil and putting big profits in their own companies' coffers. Don't you realize the Bush family owns all of the contracting companies the military now uses to work in the Middle East?
Bush LIED about WMDS. We haven't found any. Just because we waited over 10 years after his lying, war-mongering father went in, doesn't mean Saddam hid them. Our greedy government would never have believed Saddam no matter what he said. Hans Blix said there were no WMDs any more. Whay shouldn't we believe him? He works for a neutral party- the U.N. who are honest and always looking out for peace in the world. What Saddam had before- WE GAVE HIM- so it's our own fault! Our military is not over there "saving" people from a ruthless dictator, they're KILLING THOUSAND OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS EVERY DAY- ON PURPOSE!!! Is one more life really worth it? Every life is precious and we can't keep letting the corporate run military machine kill and maim people! No matter what, war is NEVER the answer. Can't we all just get along??
How's that?
It is possible to support the soldiers, to want them to be safe, to want them to have proper body armor (something Bush didn't give them), and not support the war. Imagine that for some reason the president and congress snapped one day and decided to invade Canada. Would you support the war? No. Would you support the troops and want them to be safe? Hopefully, yes.
As for Iraq, we went into it with inadaquate troop levels, with no exit plan, and quite frankly without a clue about people and how they'd respond in a power vacuum. I hope we do still find a way to resolve Iraq, but i doubt it.
Impeaching? There is evidence that Bush might have lied to the American people. We found no WMD's, like Bush claimed. There were no ties to Al-Quida. It should be investigated to see if he lied to the American people, and if he did, it should be dealt with. Don't you agree that if he did lie to us, it is a much more a 'high crime or misdemeanor' than getting a blowjob?
Now to answer what I guess was the crux of your question, I don't hate Bush. I am sure that he is a likeable guy in person. However, I strongly disagree with his policies, and I worry about the direction he is taking the country.
Why do you think he is the greatest of modern times? I always leaned towards Eisenhower myself.
-Nick
interesting. You mention how "they" will not answer, and then then one does, you don't rebutt. Maybe that says something about conservatives.
-Nick
Nick...surely you jest? I have a busy life and just now am able to sign in and respond...patience my friend :)
Let me respond to you point by point, as is my way, I do not want to be accused of dodging questions, because that is not what I do.
"Imagine that for some reason the president and congress snapped one day and decided to invade Canada. Would you support the war? No. Would you support the troops and want them to be safe? Hopefully, yes."
First .. the idea of invading Canada is ridiculous and cleary stated by you for dramatic effect, I get your point though...if Canada was a supporter of terrorism, I would wholeheartedly support an invasion .. Bush said it in 2001, you are either with us, or against us..period. The troops have always been supplied with proper equipment and armor. Its obvious you do not review all news sources as this fact was all over the conservative networks. The fact is..soldiers are provided all the armor they need/want but some do not want to be hindered down with extra armor. So your point is taken, but invalidated.
"As for Iraq, we went into it with inadaquate troop levels, with no exit plan, and quite frankly without a clue about people and how they'd respond in a power vacuum. I hope we do still find a way to resolve Iraq, but i doubt it."
We had plenty of troops, the exit plan was victory, which was defined from the beginning as bringing democracy to Iraq with a stable government in place, do you not remember the state of the union address in 2003 before the invasion?
"Impeaching? There is evidence that Bush might have lied to the American people. We found no WMD's, like Bush claimed. There were no ties to Al-Quida. It should be investigated to see if he lied to the American people, and if he did, it should be dealt with. Don't you agree that if he did lie to us, it is a much more a 'high crime or misdemeanor' than getting a blowjob?"
First, let me correct an error on your part. Clinton was not impeached for the offense of getting a BJ...if that was the case, every president in history (Just about) would be impeached. Clinton was impeached for lying under oath to congress. An impeachable offense. But you will remember that he was never removed from office and the senate never confirmed his impeachment. As well, if you follow any of the conservative media, you will find that there is evidence that the WMD's were moved just prior to the invasion. Do you forget the 43 UN Resolutions to Sadaam to cooperate or suffer? You obviously do since you bring up the no WMD issue.
Bush has had baseless accusations thrown at him from day 1 in his administration, hell, even before he was elected. I am tired (as are most of americans) of hearing these allegations only for it to disappear into the night....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. If there is proof the president committed a crime or an offense that was not in line with his office, I would be the first to place his ass on the rail and run him out of town, but there is NO EVIDENCE...So enough already. Further, there is evidence that is surfacing that Sadaam had a hand in funding and training terrorist operatives throughout the world. If you paid attention to ALL of the news, you would know this. One mistake I see many people make (conservatives included) is the following of only 1 news source. You HONESTLY have to watch or read all of the news sources...liberal and conservative, then know the truth is somewhere in between the 2.
"Now to answer what I guess was the crux of your question, I don't hate Bush. I am sure that he is a likeable guy in person. However, I strongly disagree with his policies, and I worry about the direction he is taking the country."
Fair enough, that is your opinion and I respect that.
"Why do you think he is the greatest of modern times? I always leaned towards Eisenhower myself."
I am glad you asked this. Bush is the only president in memory that has not bowed to what the public thinks should be done about the war on terror...THANK GOD. He has said what he is going to do...then DID IT. Something which has lacked on many presidents part since the days of the great Ronald Reagen. We needed a president like Bush at the time of 9/11 because I am honestly of the opinion that any other would have failed miserably in a follow through of the war on terror.
There you have it, but you still have not answered the most important question, why do you hate Bush, and when did it start?
Um, Nick said he didn't hate Bush, but that he disliked his policies, so the question should be...
At what point did you start disliking his policies?
Thank you for the correction Airborne :)
Hello...Nick...you have a rebuttal?
HELLO!!!!!!
hehehe...just a little fun with you regarding the earlier comment.
:) Cheers
The LLLs are too busy fornicating with each other for fornication's sake to be bothered with answering the question why they hate Bush.
I cant argue at all with that WMD
When did I start disliking Bush’s policies? Sometime in 2002, 2003. I was only 13 during the 2000 election, so I understandably didn’t know or care about politics or current issues. As I grew older and more aware of the world around me, I started paying more attention to politics, and came to realize what my views were. I just realized that I disagreed with Bush on most issues and the direction he’s leading us.
“Nick...surely you jest? I have a busy life and just now am able to sign in and respond...patience my friend :)”
I know, I was just giving you a hard time, nothing’s meant by it.
“First .. the idea of invading Canada is ridiculous and cleary stated by you for dramatic effect, I get your point though...if Canada was a supporter of terrorism, I would wholeheartedly support an invasion .. Bush said it in 2001, you are either with us, or against us..period.”
First of all, you didn’t get my point. My point is that it is possible to support the soldiers and not the war. If canada, the same peace loving canucks we have today, was invaded, would you still want the soldiers to be safe and secure while thinking we shouldn’t have gone?
Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. Yet they’re a strong ally. Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia? Uzbekistan is a dictatorship, they’re a stalwart ally. I see something amiss here.
” The troops have always been supplied with proper equipment and armor. Its obvious you do not review all news sources as this fact was all over the conservative networks. The fact is… soldiers are provided all the armor they need/want but some do not want to be hindered down with extra armor. So your point is taken, but invalidated.”
If they have all the armor the need, then why do they complain about it? Why do you hear stories of soldiers raiding dump yards for makeshift armor? It seems a silly thing to do if you’re swimming in armor. Maybe FOX is wrong on this one, my friend.
“We had plenty of troops,”
We didn’t. We had enough troops to topple Saddam, but we didn’t have enough to effectively patrol all the cities in the aftermath to keep insurgents from seizing hold. If we had more troops, we wouldn’t have had to liberate Fallujah or Tal Afar in the first place. We could have also secured the borders quicker, cutting down on foreign insurgents.
“the exit plan was victory, which was defined from the beginning as bringing democracy to Iraq with a stable government in place, do you not remember the state of the union address in 2003 before the invasion?”
That’s not an exit plan, that’s an objective. Bush thought we’d be greeted with flowers as liberators. He made no plans to deal with sectarian violence. He did not have a way to deal with reactionary politico-religious leaders. He didn’t have a clear map on how he was going to make Iraq into a sustainable democracy. Look what’s happened now, it’s broke down into sectarian civil war.
“. As well, if you follow any of the conservative media, you will find that there is evidence that the WMD's were moved just prior to the invasion.”
George Bush himself admitted that there were probably no WMD’s. Face reality, we didn’t find any because there were none. We found no proof after invading the country of any WMD’s, despite the huge list rattled off by Bush in his 2003 SOTU speech, or Powell in his speech to the UN.
“Do you forget the 43 UN Resolutions to Sadaam to cooperate or suffer? You obviously do since you bring up the no WMD issue.”
So he defied the UN, so that was justification to invade him, an act that defied the UN?
“Bush has had baseless accusations thrown at him from day 1 in his administration, hell, even before he was elected. I am tired (as are most of americans) of hearing these allegations only for it to disappear into the night....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. If there is proof the president committed a crime or an offense that was not in line with his office, I would be the first to place his ass on the rail and run him out of town, but there is NO EVIDENCE...”
except, of course, testimony by dick Clarke, or the downing street memo, which Tony Blaire has more or less verified. More evidence has surfaced of late, as you probably know, that indicates he might have been fixing intelligence around policy. A senior Reagan official, Paul Roberts, called for impeachment. I’m not saying he definitely did, I’m saying it should be investigated because there’s evidence that he might have.
Another interesting thing: many of Bush’s advisors, including: dick cheney, Donald Rumsfield, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, and others, wanted to go into Iraq since the 1990’s. Go to www.newamericancentury.org, they describe it there.
“Further, there is evidence that is surfacing that Sadaam had a hand in funding and training terrorist operatives throughout the world. If you paid attention to ALL of the news, you would know this.”
I would be interested in seeing this information.
“I am glad you asked this. Bush is the only president in memory that has not bowed to what the public thinks should be done about the war on terror...THANK GOD. He has said what he is going to do...then DID IT.”
You mean like pulling needed troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq that led to Bin Ladin’s escape from Tora Bora, warlords ruling most of the country, and the transformation of Afghanistan into the world’s biggest supplier of opium where you can be killed for being a Christian?
“Something which has lacked on many presidents part since the days of the great Ronald Reagen.”
Erm, there have only been two presidents since Ronald Reagan, that’s not a lot. And at least when Clinton went into Bosnia, he got the job done. Clinton successfully nation-built. Bush, Sr. didn’t go into main Iraq because he knew it’d turn out like this quagmire.
“The LLLs are too busy fornicating with each other for fornication's sake to be bothered with answering the question why they hate Bush.”
Erm, what is LLL?
“I wonder when Nick is going to answer back on my response to him”
Being asked in the blog proper? How could I refuse?
-Nick
Whoops, one point i forgot to add in in the discussion of body armor. another problem for the soldiers is that many of these reservests have high paying jobs in civilian life, and they take massive pay cuts to go and fight for our country. We should subsidize our brave soldiers, making up for the money they lose to fight.
-Nick
"First of all, you didn’t get my point. My point is that it is possible to support the soldiers and not the war. If canada, the same peace loving canucks we have today, was invaded, would you still want the soldiers to be safe and secure while thinking we shouldn’t have gone?"
With all due respect my young friend, you miss what I said. If Canada was a supporter of Terrorism, YES..invade them.
"Saudi Arabia supports terrorism. Yet they’re a strong ally. Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia? Uzbekistan is a dictatorship, they’re a stalwart ally. I see something amiss here."
As do I.
"If they have all the armor the need, then why do they complain about it? Why do you hear stories of soldiers raiding dump yards for makeshift armor? It seems a silly thing to do if you’re swimming in armor. Maybe FOX is wrong on this one, my friend."
I will refer you to another blogger, a conservative, who posted information on this very topic, see http://flightpundit.com/archives/2006/03/26/media-impact-on-marines/ for a discussion on this very topic.
"We didn’t. We had enough troops to topple Saddam, but we didn’t have enough to effectively patrol all the cities in the aftermath to keep insurgents from seizing hold. If we had more troops, we wouldn’t have had to liberate Fallujah or Tal Afar in the first place. We could have also secured the borders quicker, cutting down on foreign insurgents."
I defer to the previous commenter WMD, the troop levels have been sufficient, the strategy has been wrong. He said ' the Vietnam tactic of taking an objective and then retreating to a safe zone. WRONG!!! Take the place occupy it, use it for a base of operations. That way you do not have to take it all over again next weeek and the week after.' And that IS the opinion of a lot of people.
"That’s not an exit plan, that’s an objective. Bush thought we’d be greeted with flowers as liberators. He made no plans to deal with sectarian violence. He did not have a way to deal with reactionary politico-religious leaders. He didn’t have a clear map on how he was going to make Iraq into a sustainable democracy. Look what’s happened now, it’s broke down into sectarian civil war."
I beg to differ with you on this point. It is not devolving into a sectarian civil war such as what the MSM (Main Stream Media) would have you believe. Just today the Iraqi PM bowed down in the name of peace to try and end the stalemate. I invite you to look at any one of thousands of military blogs of soldiers in country that disagree with the MSM on the point that it is just a quagmire.
"George Bush himself admitted that there were probably no WMD’s. "
I dont remember him saying that. The truth is, there were WMD and they were moved prior to the invasion.
"So he defied the UN, so that was justification to invade him, an act that defied the UN?"
The UN Resolutions clearly called for Sadaam to co-operate and quit playing games or face having military action taken against him. The United States very wisely went ahead and followed up on the UN resolutions, despite their protests against doing so. And why were they protesting so strongly? Kofi Anaan himself was profiting from the Oil for Food program as was France and Germany. Hmm...I wondery why the UN was all talk and no action?
"except, of course, testimony by dick Clarke, or the downing street memo, which Tony Blaire has more or less verified."
More or less? Which is it..MORE..or LESS? Why has the issue faded into the background? Because the papers that were presented as evidence were typed by a reporter, thus negating any and all authenticity. Again..NO PROOF.
"I’m saying it should be investigated because there’s evidence that he might have."
I am all for that too, lets see what the facts have in store, meantime, lets STOP hurling baseless accusation at him. Ever read the story of the little boy who cried wolf? That is what the democrats sound like, so conservatives are tuning them out.
"Another interesting thing: many of Bush’s advisors, including: dick cheney, Donald Rumsfield, Jeb Bush, Scooter Libby, and others, wanted to go into Iraq since the 1990’s"
Yes...because they rightly felt that Bush Sr had not completed the job...and why didnt he complete the job? Because the UN advised him not to...but it all goes back to that nasty lil oil for food program...doesnt it? Bush Sr had no balls, which is why he lost in 92..Bush Jr has balls, kudos to him.
"I would be interested in seeing this information."
Ok, go here: http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=1548 You do not hear about these documents because the MSM has decided not to pursue it, it doesnt fit their I hate Bush agenda.
"You mean like pulling needed troops out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq that led to Bin Ladin’s escape from Tora Bora, warlords ruling most of the country, and the transformation of Afghanistan into the world’s biggest supplier of opium where you can be killed for being a Christian?"
I dont think you have proof of this, further, how many troops does it take to follow up on intelligence leads? Further, the UN Security force was given the duty of continuing the chase, so why are you not blaming them? France and Germany stayed behind in Afghanistan, and the United States STILL had to be on the forefront there....goes back to that nasty lil oil for food program.
"Erm, there have only been two presidents since Ronald Reagan, that’s not a lot. And at least when Clinton went into Bosnia, he got the job done."
Oh my...that is a laugh. Do you realise there is STILL war going on there? Do you realise the UN forces are DAILY challenged? The job was not done...it was a 2nd rate job which disappeared quickly from the radarscope because Clinton lost to Bush.
"Clinton successfully nation-built. Bush, Sr. didn’t go into main Iraq because he knew it’d turn out like this quagmire."
Bush Sr didnt go into main Iraq because the UN asked him to hold back and made the objective to push Iraqi forces OUT of Kuwait. Do I need to reiterate WHY the UN didnt want to take out Sadaam back then when they had the chance?
"Erm, what is LLL?"
That is a good question, MACKER, WTF is LLL?
"another problem for the soldiers is that many of these reservests have high paying jobs in civilian life, and they take massive pay cuts to go and fight for our country. We should subsidize our brave soldiers, making up for the money they lose to fight."
When anyone signs up, they are not doing it for the money, contrary to what you would believe, they do it for the honor of serving their country, ask some veterans of Iraq....why they went, they will tell you, because they have a sense of duty, honor and country.
Correction on Clinton losing to Bush, I meant Gore.
I question Bush’s claim that he is truly dedicated to spreading freedom and democracy when he allies with Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. Also, he has not done anything about the genocide going on in Darfur, which is a serious problem all people should want to put an end to. Also, is our buddy-buddy situation justified with China when they repress religion?
“I will refer you to another blogger, a conservative, who posted information on this very topic, see *impact-on-marines/ for a discussion on this very topic.”
I really think this is an issue that unless we get statistics, it’d be hard to verify exactly. But I find it defies logic that a military with full access to armor would be raiding junkyards to modify humvees if they had the armor they need. Also, the article quoted there talks about marines, who understandably are more active and mobile than the average soldier and would need more flexibility. What about the common Army soldiers?
“defer to the previous commenter WMD, the troop levels have been sufficient, the strategy has been wrong. He said ' the Vietnam tactic of taking an objective and then retreating to a safe zone. WRONG!!! Take the place occupy it, use it for a base of operations. That way you do not have to take it all over again next weeek and the week after.' And that IS the opinion of a lot of people.”
I’m sorry, but WMD, despite his name isn’t exactly an expert witness here. So you do admit, though, that the administration made a large strategic error? The administration simply was not ready the guerilla warfare, which is what this is.
According to Knight-Ridder, before they sold their soul… erm, papers, to McClatchy, many top officials thought we were a good 100,000 troops short of what we needed. We couldn’t patrol the borders or cities because we were stretched too thin, a problem which continues to today. http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9927782.htm
“beg to differ with you on this point. It is not devolving into a sectarian civil war such as what the MSM (Main Stream Media) would have you believe. Just today the Iraqi PM bowed down in the name of peace to try and end the stalemate.”
I’m not talking about the politics, though the politics worry me. In the last election, I don’t have the number with me, but way over the vast majority of Iraqis voted for sectarian parties instead of Iraqi unity parties.
If its not devolving into a civil war, what do you call all these reports of shia killing sunni and sunni killing shia? The MSM isn’t making this up. What do you call the bombing of the al askari mosque? If this isn’t a civil war, I’d be interested in hearing your definition of what would be.
“I invite you to look at any one of thousands of military blogs of soldiers in country that disagree with the MSM on the point that it is just a quagmire”
On-duty Soldiers are not supposed to criticize their superiors. It’d be dishonorable for a soldier to criticize.
http://www.ivaw.net
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/newsid_4850000/newsid_4859400/bb_wm_4859458.stm
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/soldiers_against_the_war.htm
Bush said we’d be there for a very short time, just in and out. He now says we’ll probably be there until after 2008. That sounds like a quagmire to me. But what do you think would be a quagmire?
“I dont remember him saying that. The truth is, there were WMD and they were moved prior to the invasion.”
The Deulfar report said there were no WMD’s. Bush admitted, as this article shows. http://www.sundayherald.com/33628 . Foreign news has a lot that ours doesn’t. Also, think of Syria’s view. They have their neighbor being invaded by a country for having WMD’s that is hostile to them. This country has shown interest in possible invading Syria one day. Having WMD’s, especially helping Iraq with theirs, is a sure way of ending up with smart bombs falling on Damascus. They’d have to be amazingly stupid to let that happen. And what evidence do you have that they moved them to Syria?
“The UN Resolutions clearly called for Sadaam to co-operate and quit playing games or face having military action taken against him. The United States very wisely went ahead and followed up on the UN resolutions, despite their protests against doing so. And why were they protesting so strongly? Kofi Anaan himself was profiting from the Oil for Food program as was France and Germany. Hmm...I wondery why the UN was all talk and no action?”
Is the act of defying the UN justification for military action? If so, we broke the UN, and I don’t think you think we should be invaded.
“More or less? Which is it..MORE..or LESS? Why has the issue faded into the background? Because the papers that were presented as evidence were typed by a reporter, thus negating any and all authenticity. Again..NO PROOF.”
What proof do you have that it was typed up by a reporter? A reporter did transcribe it. Seeing as how having a photocopy of the document itself might have been illegal, that’s understandable. I do admit, though, that I am no expert on British law.
I say more or less because while he did not flat out say “the downing street memo is correct” he did, when questioned, attempt to justify it instead of denying it. Seems real to me. I do love, though, how you summarily dismiss this and yet cling that the weapons were sent to Syria, of which there is little or no concrete evidence.
“Yes...because they rightly felt that Bush Sr had not completed the job...and why didnt he complete the job? Because the UN advised him not to...but it all goes back to that nasty lil oil for food program...doesnt it? Bush Sr had no balls, which is why he lost in 92..Bush Jr has balls, kudos to him.”
The OFFP did not begin until 1995. the Gulf war was in 91. Bush Sr. didn’t go in because he knew this is how it would turn out and he thought he could instigate a shia and Kurdish rebellion. And if you read the site, it wasn’t just Iraq they wanted to go into. It was also Syria, Iran, and any other country that got in our way.
Do you really think that you can force people to be democratic by invading their country and forcing it down their throat? People resent that. People resent some big power invading them and telling them what to do.
“Ok, go here: http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=1548 You do not hear about these documents because the MSM has decided not to pursue it, it doesnt fit their I hate Bush agenda.”
Link didn’t work, buddy. And I disagree with you that the MSM has some huge vendetta against Bush. I think its something that republicans came up with to demonize the media whenever it prints a negative story. I’ve seen some pretty favorable stories about Bush by the associated Press. There is no bias.
“I dont think you have proof of this, further, how many troops does it take to follow up on intelligence leads? Further, the UN Security force was given the duty of continuing the chase, so why are you not blaming them? France and Germany stayed behind in Afghanistan, and the United States STILL had to be on the forefront there....goes back to that nasty lil oil for food program.”
What don’t I have proof of? That Afghanistan is the world’s biggest opium dealer? That most of the parliament has ties to drug trade? That warlords still rule swaths of the country? That the Taliban is still very active? Please don’t tell me I have to prove things to you which should be obvious
“Oh my...that is a laugh. Do you realise there is STILL war going on there? Do you realise the UN forces are DAILY challenged? The job was not done...it was a 2nd rate job which disappeared quickly from the radarscope because Clinton lost to Bush.”
What does Afghanistan have to do at ALL with OFFP? I don’t see any connection between the two. I really don’t see what point you’re making here. I think you’re playing into OFFP way too much. The point is, if we had kept more troops in Afghanistan, we could have made it a lot better than it is now.
“Oh my...that is a laugh. Do you realise there is STILL war going on there? Do you realise the UN forces are DAILY challenged? The job was not done...it was a 2nd rate job which disappeared quickly from the radarscope because Clinton lost to Bush.”
Alright, I disagree. What do you have to showcase your point? From all that I’ve heard, there is nothing. And seeing as how Bosnia was over by 1995 with the Dayton Accord, I don’t see how it was swept under by the 2000 elections.
“Bush Sr didnt go into main Iraq because the UN asked him to hold back and made the objective to push Iraqi forces OUT of Kuwait. Do I need to reiterate WHY the UN didnt want to take out Sadaam back then when they had the chance?”
Because of an program that didn’t exist at the time? The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was mostly about oil. France and Germany supported our efforts. Why would they do that if they wanted Iraqi oil so bad?
“When anyone signs up, they are not doing it for the money, contrary to what you would believe, they do it for the honor of serving their country, ask some veterans of Iraq....why they went, they will tell you, because they have a sense of duty, honor and country.”
I’m not arguing that. I am saying that they go over there, and many of them come back to financial ruin, because they couldn’t afford to support their lifestyle on their military budget. If we really want to support them, we should subsidize their pay. Wouldn’t that be a better use of our money than a no-bid contract for Halliburton?
-Nick
Sheesh! LLLs are the Looney Liberal Left, also referred to as the el cubos (think L raised to the third power).
Nick, thank you for continuing and answer point to point, I appreciate that because it keeps us from getting things confused and wondering what the other is talking about. Sorry for the delay in my response, I usually do not have access to the net on weekends.
"I question Bush’s claim that he is truly dedicated to spreading freedom and democracy when he allies with Uzbekistan and Saudi Arabia. Also, he has not done anything about the genocide going on in Darfur, which is a serious problem all people should want to put an end to. Also, is our buddy-buddy situation justified with China when they repress religion?"
We are bound by agreements made during the Clinton administration to conduct business with these places. The time is not right for the WOT to turn to those countries who are powerful in the mid-east ie..Saudi Arabia et all. When our job is complete in Iraq, then will be the time to go ahead and start placing pressure on them.
"I really think this is an issue that unless we get statistics, it’d be hard to verify exactly. "
Then why is it a point of contention? Why is it presented as fact to the basis of an argument, when IN FACT, neither one of us has the hard data YET to back a claim or stipulation?
"Also, the article quoted there talks about marines, who understandably are more active and mobile than the average soldier and would need more flexibility. What about the common Army soldiers?"
Oh boy... :) .. I will let the Marines answer this one, they are a breed in and of themselves, so I will not lay claim to be able to speak for them directly. The man whose blog you went to is a marine, and a personal friend, so you are welcome to has that part out with him.
"I’m sorry, but WMD, despite his name isn’t exactly an expert witness here."
True, and I never laid claim he was. What he said made a lot of sense though, and that was the crux of my statement.
"So you do admit, though, that the administration made a large strategic error?"
I never said that I admitted it was a large strategic error, nor can you infer the same from what he said. It was a strategic error, yes, but it wasnt huge, troops can adapt, politicians can not.
"We couldn’t patrol the borders or cities because we were stretched too thin, a problem which continues to today. "
I can not argue with the orginal number of troops, but not based on the assertion from Knight-Ridder that we were short, that is the spin of 1 newspaper and an un-named source, which is sometimes credible, but it seems to me that sources have been named throughout the whole administrations time in office. I will not argue the numbers simply because I am not a military strategist expert, nor are you. But what I will say is that we had support from other countries who were going in as a coalition force, and we did the job.
"In the last election, I don’t have the number with me, but way over the vast majority of Iraqis voted for sectarian parties instead of Iraqi unity parties."
And the whole point has been to form a government using democratic methods to instill a government for the people of Iraq. That is happening as we speak, and that was my point.
"If its not devolving into a civil war, what do you call all these reports of shia killing sunni and sunni killing shia? "
I call it terrorism trying to make things happen. The fact that the whole situation has not devolved into full out civil war speaks to the intelligence and restraint of the Iraqi people. The violence is being caused by radicals who are outsiders or people who are not representative of the majority of Iraqis .. IE The baathists. The Iraqi people see this and hold back.
"On-duty Soldiers are not supposed to criticize their superiors. It’d be dishonorable for a soldier to criticize"
And yet is ok for 6 generals to criticise Bush who is the Commander in Chief and therefore a defacto superior? Sorry...doesnt wash with reason. The soldier is welcome to criticise, their 1st amendments rights do not end when they put on their uniforms and take the oath.
"Bush said we’d be there for a very short time, just in and out."
Never heard that during any of the press briefings leading up to the invasion. The people who were saying that were the democrats on capital hill (read Kerry, Pelosi et all) who were getting pressure from their liberal costituencies for voting in favor of an invasion. As is the usual way for the liberal democrats, they are trying to re-write history.
"But what do you think would be a quagmire?"
A quagmire would be for the people of Iraq to stop voting, take the advice of the radical muslims and start a jihad. The fact that the majority of Iraqi people have not done so is a testament to progress.
"The Deulfar report said there were no WMD’s. Bush admitted, as this article shows. http://www.sundayherald.com/33628 "
The article you refer to has in and of itself a contradiction. It starts out saying, 'The Bush administration has admitted that Saddam Hussein probably had no weapons of mass destruction.' And in the next paragraph says 'Senior officials in the Bush administration have admitted that they would be ÒamazedÓ if weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were found in Iraq.' And this was in May 2003, since then documents have been translated which contradict that very article which you sent me to. I refer back to http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=1548 .. you may have to copy and paste that for it to work, I have no problems with it.
"And what evidence do you have that they moved them to Syria?"
Former General Ali Ibrahim Al-Tikriti said: "I know Saddam's weapons are in Syria due to certain military deals that were made going as far back as the late 1980's that dealt with the event that either capitols were threatened with being overrun by an enemy nation." http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_east/talk_tikriti.htm
"Is the act of defying the UN justification for military action?"
In a word .. yes .. when we are a member of the UN and we see them not following through on their resolutions. There comes a time when you have to be the first to step up and take care of business.
"What proof do you have that it was typed up by a reporter?"
What proof do you have that it wasnt?
"I say more or less because while he did not flat out say “the downing street memo is correct” he did, when questioned, attempt to justify it instead of denying it."
So if I tell you the sky is brown and you say it isnt, and I justify it by explaining about reflection and refraction, even though you see that it is orange, you will believe me that it is brown?
" yet cling that the weapons were sent to Syria, of which there is little or no concrete evidence"
if you check the above link to flopping aces, you will see my basis for my argument.
"Do you really think that you can force people to be democratic by invading their country and forcing it down their throat? "
Nope, but what I do believe is that if you invade a nation and topple its government, you have an obligation to instill another government which will work for the people. Hussein wasnt working for the ordinary Iraq, as dictatorships tend to do, the everyday ordinary Iraqi needed something different, we are providing that.
"Link didn’t work, buddy"
Works fine.
"And I disagree with you that the MSM has some huge vendetta against Bush."
Want proof? http://www.newsbusters.org/ Check any of the number of entries they have.
"I think its something that republicans came up with to demonize the media whenever it prints a negative story"
There never is any proof and a whole lot of speculation involved when the MSM presents a story, I recognise this, which is why I get my news from several sources, then form an opinion based on the facts presented, not the spin by the reporter.
"What don’t I have proof of? "
your statement that we missed OBL based SOLELY on the fact that we pulled troops to Iraq.
"That Afghanistan is the world’s biggest opium dealer?"
Nope, they are.
"That most of the parliament has ties to drug trade?"
Nope, they do.
"That warlords still rule swaths of the country?"
Yep, because Warlords only control small sections of certain villages which are on the borders. They do not control swaths of land as you state.
"That the Taliban is still very active?"
The taliban as a government exists no longer, which is what the objective was in Afghanistan..the UN objective...which if its as you state, then that means that the UN has not done their job..right? So why are you condemning the US instead of the UN?
"What does Afghanistan have to do at ALL with OFFP?"
Nothing, it was a nice distraction for Kofi Anaan. But that is not what I was answering, read back on what I was answering, then try it again. Its ok, I get convoluted sometimes too when trying to mix 3 subjects into one. I am sure I will do it more than once in this thread.
" The point is, if we had kept more troops in Afghanistan, we could have made it a lot better than it is now."
So can we trust the UN to do a job or not trust the UN to do a job? The UN is in charge of Afghanistan, why is it entirely up to us to do everything in a country where we are supposed to rely on countries like France and Germany to take up some slack?
"Alright, I disagree"
As is your perogative which I respect, but listen, watch and read some other media sources, and you will hear about it. A lot of media outlets dont care about Bosnia anymore, but there are still people there.
"Why would they do that if they wanted Iraqi oil so bad?"
I never said they wanted Iraqi oil, they wanted the profits from the oil for food program, which they were benefitting from.
"Wouldn’t that be a better use of our money than a no-bid contract for Halliburton?"
maybe, but Clinton made the deals with Halliburton back in the mid 90's, at least you are not trying to blame Bush for Halliburtons no-bid contracts, but neither are you giving proper credit where credit is due.
Well, I don't have time right now for a long dissertation but I will give some of my favorite links for consideration:
Democrats, You Own This History
Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges
The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War
Rep. Murtha is causing casualties
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home