Back to normal
Ok, everything is set back to comment moderation, it has been one week and Nick has been the only one to respond to my questions, so its time to get back to normal. I will allow anonymous posting from now on, but only if it follow the same rules as other posts....No personal attacks, no name calling, and make your point in an intelligent adult fashion...the means NO PROFANITY.
I want to thank Nick and invite him to continue responding in the thread, or any thread, he feels appropriate to respond to. I will continue the debate on my question until one or both of us reach either an impass or a quagmire which runs in circles or we each acquiesce to the others talking points.
Thanks to everyone who participated.
posted by LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder @ 12:58
3 Comments:
Hey, I just hope you enjoy this as much as I do.
-Nick
For some reason, it won't let me post my rebuttal, so I'll put it here.
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
Nick,
I responded on the original thread :)
Other anonymous..what exactly are you talking about?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home