skins Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 (edited) I for one loved Bush's decisive move into Afghanistan. My only problem with it was he waited too long to get in there. But after that his foreign policy went in the crapper. For example, by diverting our focus and resources to Iraq, we have created a fricking warlord run narco-state in Afghanistan and left elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. If any of the stuff we are spouting about freedom means anything we would have finished Afghanistan, where we had the support of the entire world (even Muslims). The first post in this thread is misleading because I think we will ultimately succeed in Iraq. I dont think it will be a Vietnam because we wont ultimately flee in disgrace. I find that possibility highly unlikely and hope that it does not happen. But the goal and circumstances in Iraq are very different than in Vietnam. The reason I say that is because I think in 2008 someone will become President who will internationalize the Iraq effort, re-brand it by taking an American face off of it and getting the UN heavily involved, and eventually it will stabilize as we recede more into the background. Of course, that means no neo theo con Republican. Even a McCain type of Republican President could help fix Iraq. But until Bush is out of office we are going to have a complete clusterOprah in Iraq because his administration are clowns who run on misinformation and hopes. It is one thing to tell the American people that things are going well in Iraq when they arent, it is quite another to believe it and base policy on yer incorrect information. High ranking military told Congressional leaders in Baghdad recently that it would be 2 years before the Iraq military could really start to take over responsibilities in a significant manner. Thats a long time. I think the neo con goal is a heavy US military presence and continual fighting in that region for a long long time. I think it is bad policy. But I do think there is a way for us to be successful in Iraq. Edited June 9, 2005 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 From USA Today "Intelligence and facts were being fixed" by the Bush administration "around" a policy that saw military action "as inevitable," the newspaper quoted from the memo. "There's nothing farther from the truth," Bush told reporters as Blair stood at his side. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," Bush said in response to a question about the memo. "It was our last option." No it wasn't. Tommy Franks was coordinating going to war from the beginning of the Afghanny war. The man(Bush) still can't tell the truth and still doesn't. From what I saw they did cook the books and went in thinking the war would be easy, ignoring protecting the armories, driving straight to Bagdad thinking that once saddam fell so would the rest of Iraq and didn't listen to their own experts. Not only did they underestimate the insurgents, but they thought the whole war would be easy judging not by their words bu by their actions. They are still doing that in other ways today. Yesterday it was changing the language of scientists on global warming. Unity? That isn't what they want. It takes 2 sides to have an agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 One thing I wonder is this. If Shrub hadn't gone the "They've got WMD" route and instead had come out and said," Saddam's an *** who's ignoring UN resolutions, killing and oppressing his people and we're going to take him out because we don't want him around anymore." would the US's domestic situation be any different? 836372[/snapback] Decidedly, yes. It would be even better if he'd said: "The Middle East is a cesspool of terrorist states and mad dictators. We're going to begin a cleanup operation, beginning with Iraq, that will inspire other countries in the region to get their $hit together and move themselves towards democracy and active anti-terrorist assistance to us and our friends." As I've said multiple times before, there is merit in this. It's the dishonesty and the assumption that all the US citizen can understand is fear that makes me angry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 (edited) Decidedly, yes. It would be even better if he'd said: "The Middle East is a cesspool of terrorist states and mad dictators. We're going to begin a cleanup operation, beginning with Iraq, that will inspire other countries in the region to get their $hit together and move themselves towards democracy and active anti-terrorist assistance to us and our friends." As I've said multiple times before, there is merit in this. It's the dishonesty and the assumption that all the US citizen can understand is fear that makes me angry. 836487[/snapback] There may be merit in it but it isnt enough to justify invasion and occupation of other countries. There is a name for that and its Imperialism. Bush and Blair had to make this about threats or be in worse violation of international law and our own treaties. Edited June 9, 2005 by skins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seminoles Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Decidedly, yes. It would be even better if he'd said: "The Middle East is a cesspool of terrorist states and mad dictators. We're going to begin a cleanup operation, beginning with Iraq, that will inspire other countries in the region to get their $hit together and move themselves towards democracy and active anti-terrorist assistance to us and our friends." As I've said multiple times before, there is merit in this. It's the dishonesty and the assumption that all the US citizen can understand is fear that makes me angry. 836487[/snapback] i might make this a thread but i got two going on already. Wilson and many people before and after him have said or implied the fact that democracy is the type of government we need in the world and that everything else isn't suitable. dont get me wrong, i love democracy, but what would happen if there was a country, lets say spain, that became communist. but within their communism, the country grows tremendously in every aspect of life and they become a very happy country. do we still invade them since they aren't a democracy or anything near it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 sheet, most of these guys wonder when i'm going to stop talking 836425[/snapback] No we don't, we've long since given up on any hope of that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 There may be merit in it but it isnt enough to justify invasion and occupation of other countries. There is a name for that and its Imperialism. Bush and Blair had to make this about threats or be in worse violation of international law and our own treaties. 836489[/snapback] Nevertheless, there is merit in a strategy to bring the Middle East kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Money won't do it, because they're all afloat on a sea of money / oil. Fomenting and supporting rebellion would have worked best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 No it wasn't. Tommy Franks was coordinating going to war from the beginning of the Afghanny war. The man(Bush) still can't tell the truth and still doesn't. Even before that. Reading Bob Woodwards book, Rumsfield was pestering Franks about War Plans with Iraq when Bush won the presidency. This was being planned even before 9/11. Now I know...every good nation needs a defense against all the evil nations of the world and its smart to have plans for the unexpected...but this wasnt just precautionary plans the intent began practically the day Bush was sworn in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Nevertheless, there is merit in a strategy to bring the Middle East kicking and screaming into the 21st century. Money won't do it, because they're all afloat on a sea of money / oil. Fomenting and supporting rebellion would have worked best. 836496[/snapback] Kind of a blanket statement, but isn't it odd that most of the world's money is in the same place where "society" is the least far along (according to some)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 There may be merit in it but it isnt enough to justify invasion and occupation of other countries. There is a name for that and its Imperialism. 836489[/snapback] What is so wrong about Imperialism? It is the way things have been throughout history...invasion and occupation of other countries is what has formed cultures, etc. through the ages. :tongueincheek: :sorta: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 What is so wrong about Imperialism? It is the way things have been throughout history...invasion and occupation of other countries is what has formed cultures, etc. through the ages. :tongueincheek: :sorta: 836522[/snapback] Right, thru the ages. The Dark Ages, perhaps. It's no longer the 17th/18th Century. Society has - hopefully - progressed to the point that Imperialism is all but passe'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Right, thru the ages. The Dark Ages, perhaps. It's no longer the 17th/18th Century. Society has - hopefully - progressed to the point that Imperialism is all but passe'. 836525[/snapback] The greatest century for imperialism in it's truest sense was the 19th century, where virtually all European countries set out to deliberately build (and in some cases grow) empires, imperialism in it's truest sense. Imperialism these days is achieved by monetary influence. It's not dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 No it wasn't. Tommy Franks was coordinating going to war from the beginning of the Afghanny war. The man(Bush) still can't tell the truth and still doesn't.Even before that. Reading Bob Woodwards book, Rumsfield was pestering Franks about War Plans with Iraq when Bush won the presidency. This was being planned even before 9/11. Now I know...every good nation needs a defense against all the evil nations of the world and its smart to have plans for the unexpected...but this wasnt just precautionary plans the intent began practically the day Bush was sworn in. 836504[/snapback] Yes and if you read Clarke's book it was planned for right after 911. In 1998 the Neo Cons wanted Clinton to take him out but he wouldn't. Why don't presidents trust the american people? Why do they lie? If they had told the truth and did the job as Zinni, Colin Powell and others suggested we would be in a different place today. After 911 everyone was on their side. Noone cared who the president was until Iraq. But the original question was national unity. I don't think these people want unity. 95% of Judicial nominees isn't enough for them. 2 weeks ago there was a forum on the media and they couldn't even get a decent room for the broadcast. They like division-divide and conquer works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Imperialism these days is achieved by monetary influence. It's not dead. 836527[/snapback] Isn't that Capitalism? Show me the money! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilwoman Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 i might make this a thread but i got two going on already. Wilson and many people before and after him have said or implied the fact that democracy is the type of government we need in the world and that everything else isn't suitable. dont get me wrong, i love democracy, but what would happen if there was a country, lets say spain, that became communist. but within their communism, the country grows tremendously in every aspect of life and they become a very happy country. do we still invade them since they aren't a democracy or anything near it. 836491[/snapback] It seems to be our history to destroy that which does not fit in to our sense of religious right and wrong. Whether its animals, people, nations, the environment, we will create a cause, out of fear, which is easy for people to believe...pump it up with half truths that support an agenda so it's rather believable, and once you have god fearing people, in fear, then they are eaiser to control, manipulate...sounds harsh, but unless people can see beyond their own religious dogma, (I'm not talking about spirituality) and move to a higher lever of enlightenment then anything that comes into conflict with those beliefs are evil. It's considered a threat. As a nation I think we are stuck until something happens and we can reach another level of awareness, awakening or spirituality...whatever you want to call it. We are no longer part of the solution, we have become part of the problem. Our military is not the answer.......just because we are stronger doesn't mean we are smarter...we need to be smarter and move beyond our history and be leaders in enlightenment...in all things...science, politics, foreign policy, medicine...on and on...but we would rather raise our might fists and shake them at the bullies of the world. Dont get me wrong...the US provides lots of assistance to countries in times of need as we should. But that isnt the answer either. Anyway, a time is coming when that enlightenment will come...but we have to be open to it and desire to be part of it...Yeah I know it all sounds like crap but that I believe is the answer, I could go on but I am sure you are ready to throw up so I will stop. : Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Decidedly, yes. It would be even better if he'd said: "The Middle East is a cesspool of terrorist states and mad dictators. We're going to begin a cleanup operation, beginning with Iraq, that will inspire other countries in the region to get their $hit together and move themselves towards democracy and active anti-terrorist assistance to us and our friends." As I've said multiple times before, there is merit in this. It's the dishonesty and the assumption that all the US citizen can understand is fear that makes me angry. 836487[/snapback] I'm with big bear on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 It seems to be our history to destroy that which does not fit in to our sense of religious right and wrong. Whether its animals, people, nations, the environment, we will create a cause, out of fear, which is easy for people to believe...pump it up with half truths that support an agenda so it's rather believable, and once you have god fearing people, in fear, then they are eaiser to control, manipulate...sounds harsh, but unless people can see beyond their own religious dogma, (I'm not talking about spirituality) and move to a higher lever of enlightenment then anything that comes into conflict with those beliefs are evil. It's considered a threat. As a nation I think we are stuck until something happens and we can reach another level of awareness, awakening or spirituality...whatever you want to call it. We are no longer part of the solution, we have become part of the problem. Our military is not the answer.......just because we are stronger doesn't mean we are smarter...we need to be smarter and move beyond our history and be leaders in enlightenment...in all things...science, politics, foreign policy, medicine...on and on...but we would rather raise our might fists and shake them at the bullies of the world. Dont get me wrong...the US provides lots of assistance to countries in times of need as we should. But that isnt the answer either. Anyway, a time is coming when that enlightenment will come...but we have to be open to it and desire to be part of it...Yeah I know it all sounds like crap but that I believe is the answer, I could go on but I am sure you are ready to throw up so I will stop. : 836560[/snapback] I'm not too sure America's history of war-making is solely based on destroying "that which does not fit in to our sense of religious right and wrong." American Revolution - our freedom War of 1812 - England being a bunch of babies for losing the first one! Mexican-American War - war over territories in the southern border Spanish-American War - they bombed the Maine dangit! That and we wanted the Phillipines and stuff. WWI - freedom of Europe WWII - freedom of the world Korean War - freedom for South Korea Vietnam War - freedom for Southern Vietnam 1st Gulf War - freedom for Kuwait 2nd Gulf War - umm..terrorists...umm...freedom...umm...oil..I mean...religion... oh whatever! Other conflicts such as taking over the Indian's territory (not religious based though), fighting the Barbary pirates, etc. Oh yeah, am I the only tired of America having to lead in everything? Good God people, other countries at some point have to be responsible for themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 I'm not too sure America's history of war-making is solely based on destroying "that which does not fit in to our sense of religious right and wrong." American Revolution - our freedom War of 1812 - England being a bunch of babies for losing the first one! Mexican-American War - war over territories in the southern border Spanish-American War - they bombed the Maine dangit! That and we wanted the Phillipines and stuff. WWI - freedom of Europe WWII - freedom of the world Korean War - freedom for South Korea Vietnam War - freedom for Southern Vietnam 1st Gulf War - freedom for Kuwait 2nd Gulf War - umm..terrorists...umm...freedom...umm...oil..I mean...religion... oh whatever! Other conflicts such as taking over the Indian's territory (not religious based though), fighting the Barbary pirates, etc. Oh yeah, am I the only tired of America having to lead in everything? Good God people, other countries at some point have to be responsible for themselves. 836588[/snapback] Well said, Soup. And yes, I too am tired of America being everyone's baby-sitter and/or sugar daddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 There has to be some middle ground between H8 world and skins world. Is there ANYTHING regarding what all is going on in the world that the left and right can agree on. Can you all cooperatively embrace ANYTHING as fact and not propaganda? I am just curious. I'll start - we undoubtably (for whatever reason) fabricated reasons to go to Iraq. Seems pretty clear to me. Can anyone on the right or left dispute this? 836353[/snapback] No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 It seems to be our history to destroy that which does not fit in to our sense of religious right and wrong. Whether its animals, people, nations, the environment, we will create a cause, out of fear, which is easy for people to believe...pump it up with half truths that support an agenda so it's rather believable, and once you have god fearing people, in fear, then they are eaiser to control, manipulate...sounds harsh, but unless people can see beyond their own religious dogma, (I'm not talking about spirituality) and move to a higher lever of enlightenment then anything that comes into conflict with those beliefs are evil. It's considered a threat. As a nation I think we are stuck until something happens and we can reach another level of awareness, awakening or spirituality...whatever you want to call it. We are no longer part of the solution, we have become part of the problem. Our military is not the answer.......just because we are stronger doesn't mean we are smarter...we need to be smarter and move beyond our history and be leaders in enlightenment...in all things...science, politics, foreign policy, medicine...on and on...but we would rather raise our might fists and shake them at the bullies of the world. Dont get me wrong...the US provides lots of assistance to countries in times of need as we should. But that isnt the answer either. Anyway, a time is coming when that enlightenment will come...but we have to be open to it and desire to be part of it...Yeah I know it all sounds like crap but that I believe is the answer, I could go on but I am sure you are ready to throw up so I will stop. : 836560[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10g_DBA Posted June 9, 2005 Share Posted June 9, 2005 Well said, Soup. And yes, I too am tired of America being everyone's baby-sitter and/or sugar daddy. 836591[/snapback] What about huckleberry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 Well said, Soup. And yes, I too am tired of America being everyone's baby-sitter and/or sugar daddy. 836591[/snapback] Price to be paid for being the world's only superpower. That said, all our actions are voluntary. The choice is ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I don't think so. When persons that ridicule the UN and what it does cite UN resolutions as a justifcation for war . . . You get the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 I don't think so. When persons that ridicule the UN and what it does cite UN resolutions as a justifcation for war . . . You get the idea. 836955[/snapback] you've got it all wrong. liberals love the UN like a 4 year old loves their mommy, totally blind and uncritical. conservatives love the UN like a mature relationship, willing to be honest about its faults and to encourage it to be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 10, 2005 Share Posted June 10, 2005 you've got it all wrong. liberals love the UN like a 4 year old loves their mommy, totally blind and uncritical. conservatives love the UN like a mature relationship, willing to be honest about its faults and to encourage it to be better. 837075[/snapback] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.