0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 05:36 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
...

Well, how do you, Tico, call someone who is a Middle East correspondant for 25 years if not journalist, especially since he writes for a paper?

And objectivity and Hanson? You obviously don't question that?


Fisk is a pundit. I do not call anyone who displays the complete lack of objectivity as he does, a journalist. Why do you consider him a journalist? Because he writes articles for a newspaper? Or because he's been doing it for so long? Do you consider Ann Coulter a "journalist"?

As far as Hanson, I don't consider him a journalist any more than I consider Fisk a journalist, so his objectivity isn't a matter or concern.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 05:45 pm
Unfortunately, Tico, you don't have the right to make words mean whatever the hell you want them to.

From Teh Googles:

Quote:
Definitions of journalist on the Web:

* a writer for newspapers and magazines
* diarist: someone who keeps a diary or journal
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

* Someone who works in the news gathering business, such as a photographer, editor or reporter.
edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec670/Cardboard/board/p/pulitzer/pulitzer5.html

* someone who writes news reports for newspapers, radio, TV etc. Also know as a correspondent or reporter
www.headsup.org.uk/content/default.asp


Fisk is very much a journalist, no matter what you happen to believe. Coulter is as well, so is Hanson.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 06:49 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Unfortunately, Tico, you don't have the right to make words mean whatever the hell you want them to.

From Teh Googles:


What the hell is "Teh Googles"?

Cyclops wrote:
Quote:
Definitions of journalist on the Web:

* a writer for newspapers and magazines
* diarist: someone who keeps a diary or journal
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* A journalist is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues and people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalist

* Someone who works in the news gathering business, such as a photographer, editor or reporter.
edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec670/Cardboard/board/p/pulitzer/pulitzer5.html

* someone who writes news reports for newspapers, radio, TV etc. Also know as a correspondent or reporter
www.headsup.org.uk/content/default.asp


Fisk is very much a journalist, no matter what you happen to believe. Coulter is as well, so is Hanson.

Cycloptichorn


And Jeff Gannon ... ?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 07:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Unfortunately, Tico, you don't have the right to make words mean whatever the hell you want them to.

That's Tico's stock in trade, twisting words to serve nefarious ends.

Fisk is very much a journalist, no matter what you happen to believe. Coulter is as well, so is Hanson.

Cycloptichorn


The big difference, Cy is that Fisk presents the facts. Now people like Tico don't like those facts but facts are facts. Coulter distorts issues and lies to advance nefarious ends.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Jan, 2007 10:00 pm
I have one question for those of you that are opposed to the war.

Doesnt it bother you that the Dem party,being so opposed to the war,is refusing to just stop paying for it?

After all,they control the pursestrings.
Why wont they just stop funding the war?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 01:37 am
mysteryman wrote:
I have one question for those of you that are opposed to the war.

Doesnt it bother you that the Dem party,being so opposed to the war,is refusing to just stop paying for it?

After all,they control the pursestrings.
Why wont they just stop funding the war?


Good God. If they stop funding they'll be accused of hurting the troops. I should think that's very obvious, both from a political and a humanitarian standpoint. There isn't a clean, clear line between money that is for additional troop surge, and money that would help maintain the existing operations, so that would be an easy case for Republicans to make. And don't you for a second try to make believe that isn't what would be argued.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 03:09 am
snood wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
I have one question for those of you that are opposed to the war.

Doesnt it bother you that the Dem party,being so opposed to the war,is refusing to just stop paying for it?

After all,they control the pursestrings.
Why wont they just stop funding the war?


Good God. If they stop funding they'll be accused of hurting the troops. I should think that's very obvious, both from a political and a humanitarian standpoint. There isn't a clean, clear line between money that is for additional troop surge, and money that would help maintain the existing operations, so that would be an easy case for Republicans to make. And don't you for a second try to make believe that isn't what would be argued.


Yes. The Dys dealt with this a few pages back. Being opposed to the invasion does not mean anyone could suppost a cessation of funding.
It is important we succeed in as many goals as possible...see recent utterances by Mr Cheney...because a quick withdrawal would leave us many times more badly off than we were before the invasion.

But we must never forget (and I don't think we will) about the numbskulls who in a deadly combination of hubris, arrogance, ignorance and miscalculation, got us into this mess.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 09:54 am
BOXER'S LOW BLOW

January 12, 2007 -- Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York's own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California ap parently believes that an accom plished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)

But put that aside.

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

In contrast to Boxer, Sen. Clinton seemed almost statesmanlike - until one considers that she was undercutting the president of the United States in time of war: "The president simply has not gotten the message sent loudly and clearly by the American people, that we desperately need a new course."

Schumer, meanwhile, dismissed the president's speech as "a new surge without a new strategy."

Frankly, we're not surprised by Hillary Clinton's rush to judgment. With both eyes firmly set on 2008, her Iraq position flits like a tumbleweed in the political wind. Who knows where she'll wind up?

Heck, she admitted as much by citing November's midterm elections to justify her newfound opposition to the war. (And who needs a commander-in-chief who tailors war-fighting strategy to public opinion?)

Clinton would do well to consider the words of GOP Sen. John McCain, another White House hopeful, who frankly admits that his strong support for a troop surge in Iraq has cost him votes. (Some Democrats, in fact, already are calling this "McCain's surge.")

Said McCain: "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war."

As for Schumer, we're profoundly disappointed by his remarks.

While he's always been a fiercely parti san Democrat (nothing to be ash amed of), time was when Schumer seemed to understand the existential threat posed by Islamic extremism.

Now he's been elevated to a top position in his party's Senate leadership - and he has bigger fish to fry.

Like electing Democrats.

And so, like Boxer, he cheers on Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden and John Edwards - with Clinton, presidential aspirants - as they trash Bush's plan.

To the extent that such behavior encourages America's enemies - and of course it does - he, like they, stands to have innocent blood on his hands.

Yes, the party's bloggers will be happy.

So will al Qaeda.

True enough, Democrats don't hold a monopoly on appalling behavior.

Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican presidential candidate and favorite of some conservatives, has joined with Democrats in opposition to the troop surge - and he's not alone.

The president deserves better.

Indeed, the least these critics can do is suggest an alternative that leads to success in Iraq rather than simply criticize.

Or suggest that America simply wave the white flag.

As Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said: "Now that the president has outlined a change in strategy, we should give his proposals an opportunity to work." Instead, Kyl rightly noted, "some declared the president's proposals unworkable even before they were announced."

No such nay-saying, however, was to be heard from two Capitol Hill stalwarts: McCain and Sen. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut.

"I applaud the president for rejecting the fatalism of failure and pursuing a new course to achieve success in Iraq," said Lieberman, who alone in his party genuinely comprehends what a U.S. defeat in Iraq would mean.

As for McCain, his support is tempered by the fact that he argued correctly, from the start, that the war was being fought with too few troops. Had the administration listened four years ago, this tactical shift might not be necessary now.

It would take a truly hard heart not to be touched, deeply, by the sacrifices made by the young men and women now wearing their country's uniform.

And one can only imagine the pain felt by the families of those killed and cruelly wounded in service to America. Just as it was hard to imagine the agony of the loved ones left behind on 9/11.

But even to suggest that Condoleezza Rice is not fit to serve her country because she is childless is beyond bizarre.

It is perverse.

Sen. Boxer needs to apologize.

And she needs to do it today.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:18 am
In case anyone's interested, I don't care whether you think Robert Fisk is a better "journalist" than Jonah Goldberg.

Quote:
At least Bush wants to win
By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, January 12, 2007


Americans are torn between two irreconcilable positions on the Iraq war. Some want the war to be a success - variously defined - and some want the war to be over. Conservatives are basically, but not exclusively, in the "success" camp. Liberals (and those further to the left) are basically, but not exclusively, the "over" party. And many people are suffering profound cognitive dissonance by believing these two positions can be held simultaneously. The motives driving these positions range from the purely patriotic to the coldly realistic to the cravenly political or psychologically perfervid. Parsing motives is exhausting and pointless, but one fact remains: "End it now" and "win it eventually" cannot be reconciled.

With Wednesday night's speech, President Bush made it clear that he will settle for nothing less than winning. He may be deluding himself, but he at least has done the nation the courtesy of stating his position, despite an antagonistic political establishment and a hostile public. What's maddening is that the Democratic leadership cannot, or will not, clearly tell the American people whether they are the party of "end it" or "win it."

Give Sen. Ted Kennedy his due. He not only wants the thing over, consequences be damned, but he's got the courage to admit it, as he did Tuesday at the National Press Club. But when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid come to a fork in the road, they follow Yogi Berra's advice and take it. On one hand, they tell the president they want this war brought to a close. On the other, they refuse to use their power of the purse to do exactly that, opting instead for a symbolic resolution. It may be the wisest political course for them, but it does a disservice to the nation by making the Iraq debate the equivalent of boxing with fog.

Here we have a president forthrightly trying to win a war, and the opposition - which not long ago favored increasing troops when Bush was against that - won't say what it wants. This is flatly immoral. If you believe the war can't be won and there's nothing to be gained by staying, then, to paraphrase Sen. John Kerry, you're asking more men to die for a mistake. You should demand withdrawal. But that might cost votes, so they opt for nonbinding symbolic votes.

Another Democratic dodge is the demand for a "political solution" in Iraq, the preferred talking point among Democrats these days. This is either childishly naive or reprehensibly dishonest. No serious person thinks that peace can be secured without a political solution. The question is how to get one. And nobody - and I mean nobody - has made a credible case that the Iraqis can get from A to B without more bloodshed, with or without American support.

Saying we need a political solution is as helpful as saying "give peace a chance." Peace requires more than pie-eyed verbiage. In the real world, peace has no chance until the people who want to give death squads another shot have been dispatched from the scene. It reminds me of the liberal obsession in the 1980s with getting inner-city gangs to settle their differences with break-dance competitions. If only Muqtada al-Sadr would moonwalk to peace!

Wednesday, Bush finally acknowledged what Americans already knew: The war has not gone well. But he also acknowledged what few Democrats are willing to admit: If we leave - i.e. lose - it will be a disaster, a geo-strategic calamity for America and possibly a genocidal one for the Iraqis. One moral argument against the Iraq war in 2003 was that it would create an enormous humanitarian crisis in the form of refugees spilling over the borders, which in turn would destabilize the region. That didn't happen. But it would be the most likely result of a U.S. withdrawal now. Yet that's a risk the antiwar crowd is suddenly willing to take.

Bush declared that "victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. ... A democratic Iraq will not be perfect." This sober, stubborn emphasis on victory puts Bush at odds with much of official Washington. He wisely refused to abdicate his war responsibilities to lead to the Iraq Study Group and instead launched a broader effort to find a way to win in Iraq - a goal former Secretary of State James Baker explicitly dismissed.

Bush came up with the "surge" plan. Will it work? Nobody knows. But the one thing the American people know about George W. Bush is that he wants to win the war. What the Democrats believe is anybody's guess.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:24 am
McTag writes
Quote:
But we must never forget (and I don't think we will) about the numbskulls who in a deadly combination of hubris, arrogance, ignorance and miscalculation, got us into this mess.


It would be more honest to 'never forget' how the entire UN, the USA, the UK, the vast majority of all who had ever served as UN inspectors, virtually all heads of state in the free world, virtually the entire Congress of the USA as well as all in the previous administration and presumably Parliament, the CIA, and most of our military leaders agreed on the necessity to depose Saddam Hussein at the time. An impressive majority of Americans and presumably also brits supported it.

It would be more constructive now, as we did when used to win wars, to assess where mistakes were made and things went wrong, fix them, and get on with the process necessary to end it in the best possible way for all which would mean the terrorists give up and there is a free independent peaceful Iraq.

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.

Political correctness has been one of the worst mistakes made thus far.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:30 am
Quote:

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.


The whole idea that it would have been 'ugly and bloody' raises the specter that the war would not have in fact saved 'countless' lives at any point.

Becuase the definition of 'ugly and bloody' is that many more people would have gotten killed than the situation we currently have/are experienced. Otherwise you would be describing the current situation as 'ugly and bloody' and the supposed 'gloves-off' military as 'horrific.'

So this 'belief' of yours isn't one that's grounded in actual considerations of reality, but instead in idealistic dreams of peace through high levels of violent activity with huge numbers of civilian casualties.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:40 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.


The whole idea that it would have been 'ugly and bloody' raises the specter that the war would not have in fact saved 'countless' lives at any point.

Becuase the definition of 'ugly and bloody' is that many more people would have gotten killed than the situation we currently have/are experienced. Otherwise you would be describing the current situation as 'ugly and bloody' and the supposed 'gloves-off' military as 'horrific.'

So this 'belief' of yours isn't one that's grounded in actual considerations of reality, but instead in idealistic dreams of peace through high levels of violent activity with huge numbers of civilian casualties.

Cycloptichorn


I think you might not understand the notion being presented, and as a consequence, it is you who is ignoring reality.

Many more people might have gotten killed, and that is a reasonable interpretation of "ugly and bloody," but it does not follow that by being "uglier and bloodier" earlier on, we would not be looking at a situation where the insurgency was quelled, and a consequently more peaceful situation in that region right now. I think that is the belief that Foxy is articulating. Your pessimistic nature will not allow you to consider that scenario.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:45 am
Our greatest mistake so far was in releasing Sadr when we did instead of shipping him to Gitmo.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:50 am
Wow, thanks for pointing that out for me, Tico.

When fox says

Quote:
It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.


I generally take 'then' to mean 'in the past' when we are talking about the past. I have a hard time seeing how a bloodier and more ruthless strategy would have lead to saving countless lives in the past versus the relatively tame strategy that we've employed instead.

I also don't see an ounce of proof that it would be saving lives now, or in the future. Let's be perfectly clear what we're talking about here: we're talking about killing and displacing civilians, and nothing else. Not intentionally targetting them, but not allowing the terrorists and insurgents to use them as cover. Now, in the Conservative mind, this means that the civilians will do what exactly? Begin to fear us more than the insurgents, and kick them out of their society? Rebel against their spiritual leaders who have told them that the Americans are there to murder them all?

It's like you all have an idea in your head that if just a certain number of people can be killed, in the right areas, the insurgency and violence will collapse and we will win. But that's crazy, pure craziness, because it treats the enemy as if it were some sort of unified army, and it isn't. It belies a complete misunderstanding of the nature of Guerrila warfare and counter-insurgencies.

Saying 'this would be all wrapped up if we just weren't so bloody nice to civilians, if we 'took the gloves off'' is just an idealistic dream. It shows the same kind of flawed thinking that lead to the problems we are experiencing right now in Iraq.

We, being the superpower we are, sure had the ability to destroy Iraq using bloody tactics. But not to save it using such tactics.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:56 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.


The whole idea that it would have been 'ugly and bloody' raises the specter that the war would not have in fact saved 'countless' lives at any point.

Becuase the definition of 'ugly and bloody' is that many more people would have gotten killed than the situation we currently have/are experienced. Otherwise you would be describing the current situation as 'ugly and bloody' and the supposed 'gloves-off' military as 'horrific.'

So this 'belief' of yours isn't one that's grounded in actual considerations of reality, but instead in idealistic dreams of peace through high levels of violent activity with huge numbers of civilian casualties.

Cycloptichorn


I think you might not understand the notion being presented, and as a consequence, it is you who is ignoring reality.

Many more people might have gotten killed, and that is a reasonable interpretation of "ugly and bloody," but it does not follow that by being "uglier and bloodier" earlier on, we would not be looking at a situation where the insurgency was quelled, and a consequently more peaceful situation in that region right now. I think that is the belief that Foxy is articulating. Your pessimistic nature will not allow you to consider that scenario.


Quite right. And while I am not suggesting it would be appropriate to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, a comparison on a larger scale would be our dropping the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We killed, injured, sickened maybe up to two hundred thousand people in the process. It was a vicious, horrible, bloody, unconscionable decision at face value.

But by the most conservative estimates, by ending the war, it saved millions of Allied and Japanese lives.

The debate on whether to go to war needs to happen before the first shots are fired. We had that debate and the decision, agreed to by the large majority, was to go. Once we committed to the task, the most humane policy is to end it as quickly and expeditiously as possible with the lowest loss of life. The only way to do that is via overwhelming force and not requiring the military to pull their punches in any way that hampers their effectiveness.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:00 am
Foxfyre wrote:

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.

Political correctness has been one of the worst mistakes made thus far.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, honestly.

Are you saying that if we had killed all the Iraqis at the outset, Iraq would be peaceful now?

I don't disagree with that, but I don't believe it was an option considered for very long.

If you don't mean ALL the Iraqis (and remember Pres Bush declared military victory, "Mission Accomplished", in a few weeks) then how many Iraqis do you think it would be appropriate to later have killed?

Should we just have killed all Iraqis who were not grateful for the invasion?

I'm not sure how this would work, given the existence of laws, and everything.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:04 am
McT, there is no law against US forces killing civilians in Iraq.

All you have to show is that they were trying to get a bad guy, and then it's not just legal, hell, it's downright encouraged.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:08 am
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.

Political correctness has been one of the worst mistakes made thus far.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, honestly.

Are you saying that if we had killed all the Iraqis at the outset, Iraq would be peaceful now?

I don't disagree with that, but I don't believe it was an option considered for very long.

If you don't mean ALL the Iraqis (and remember Pres Bush declared military victory, "Mission Accomplished", in a few weeks) then how many Iraqis do you think it would be appropriate to later have killed?

Should we just have killed all Iraqis who were not grateful for the invasion?

I'm not sure how this would work, given the existence of laws, and everything.


How absurd to take from my post that 'we should have killed all the Iraqis". And we did accomplish the mission in a few weeks. Saddam and his military were defeated which was the initial goal. It was securing the peace that we didn't do well. And yes miscalculations and mistakes were made.

But yes, we should have killed all Iraqis who were not grateful for the invasion and who presumed to stop the rest of the Iraqis from forming a free, democratic, peaceful nation. And we should not have exercised more than reasonable care in doing so and we should have been willing to understand that awful stuff happens in war.

Had the people gotten behind our leaders and military from the outset and demanded they end the insurgency as quickly and expediently as possible and not second guessed (and condemned) virtually every act of war, I believe it would now be over.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:10 am
How dare people condemn things they find condemnable. I mean, they should just shut the f*ck up and get behind the goal of killing as many people who oppose what we want as possible, right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:12 am
Foxfyre wrote:
McTag wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

I believe this would be over now if we had allowed our military to take off the gloves from the beginning and do what was necessary to win the war. It would have been ugly and bloody, but it would have saved countless lives then, now, and in the future.

Political correctness has been one of the worst mistakes made thus far.


I'm not sure what you mean by this, honestly.

Are you saying that if we had killed all the Iraqis at the outset, Iraq would be peaceful now?

I don't disagree with that, but I don't believe it was an option considered for very long.

If you don't mean ALL the Iraqis (and remember Pres Bush declared military victory, "Mission Accomplished", in a few weeks) then how many Iraqis do you think it would be appropriate to later have killed?

Should we just have killed all Iraqis who were not grateful for the invasion?

I'm not sure how this would work, given the existence of laws, and everything.


How absurd to take from my post that 'we should have killed all the Iraqis". And we did accomplish the mission in a few weeks. Saddam and his military were defeated which was the initial goal. It was securing the peace that we didn't do well. And yes miscalculations and mistakes were made.

But yes, we should have killed all Iraqis who were not grateful for the invasion and who presumed to stop the rest of the Iraqis from forming a free, democratic, peaceful nation. And we should not have exercised more than reasonable care in doing so and we should have been willing to understand that awful stuff happens in war.

Had the people gotten behind our leaders and military from the outset and demanded they end the insurgency as quickly and expediently as possible and not second guessed (and condemned) virtually every act of war, I believe it would now be over.


Foxy, take some time out, a sedative, and a nap.

A. Friend
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 04:42:07