Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Georgeob1 writes

Quote:

Despite the setbacks in Iraq and the errors now evident in our strategy, the issue is not yet lost. The time scale for transformations such as the one we have been attampting is a decade or more. The path forward is difficult and uncertain, but with a likelihood of success. The path advocated by the Democrats has only one outcome - very bad both in the short abd the long term. It is very demoralizing to those involved in the fighting and struggle - I can testify to that from analogous experience. However the real failing of the bemocrats, what is most devastating to those who have sacrificed, is that they have offered nothing to replace the fundamental strategy they are casting aside, clearly for short term political gains.

You don't even have to be analogous. All you have to do is read the dozens of blogs/posts by the Iraqi vets and/or talk in person with those who have been there. There are always the dishonest who will keep looking until they can find the exception who will speak negatively of the effort and trot out the infrequent disgruntled as the norm.

By far and by large our fighting forces believe they are doing a good thing in Iraq and they don't want to come home as losers. They are not the least bit intimidated because their task is difficult. These 'kids' are seasoned, smart, well educated, and mature enough to know that all great things are difficult to do.

Collosal mistakes have been made in the prosecution of the war and these mistakes are headlined rather than all the successes. Colossal mistakes have been made in all other wars we have fought as well but some seem to forget that. Of course there is much we could have done much better and many of the previous mistakes have been corrected and others are yet to be corrected. Some will never be corrected.

But I don't believe for a minute that the war cannot be won if the American people want to win it.

0 Replies

Firefox
which war is that. The one where we are trying to convert Islam to christianity or the one where we keep control of the oil. By the way, the cute little cartoons from the right show that when you cant debate on the facts, the right does stupid little pictures. Shows the mind set anyway.

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Firefox
which war is that. The one where we are trying to convert Islam to christianity or the one where we keep control of the oil. By the way, the cute little cartoons from the right show that when you cant debate on the facts, the right does stupid little pictures. Shows the mind set anyway.

Well you certainly illustrated how to debate on the facts with this post, didn't you Rabel. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

The real colossal mistake was the administration's decision to invade Iraq. Bush continues to show that he is hung like Einstein and has the brains of a mule.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

rabel22 wrote:
Firefox
which war is that. The one where we are trying to convert Islam to christianity or the one where we keep control of the oil. By the way, the cute little cartoons from the right show that when you cant debate on the facts, the right does stupid little pictures. Shows the mind set anyway.

Well you certainly illustrated how to debate on the facts with this post, didn't you Rabel.

You aren't interested in facts. You're interested in delusional fantasies meant to mask the enormous crime that has been perpetrated upon the people of Iraq.

It's so unbelievable that you can talk about some silly notions of winning. There's no war to win. There's only an illegal invasion that can't ever be won.

Get on your knees and beg for forgiveness, that the people of Iraq may one day forgive you.

0 Replies

JTT, Well stated, and thank you!

0 Replies

I read in the paper yesterday that Robin Cook, the British Cabinet member of Tony Blair's government, and former Foreign Secretary, who resigned over the issue of the invasion of Iraq, said

"Iraq was not invaded because it was a threat. It was invaded because it was weak."

0 Replies

Saturday morning cartoons, the ones that point up the truth.

http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/02/saturday-cartoons_24.html

0 Replies

Some clearly aren't happy with the man. I wonder when Foxy will have one put up in NM.

Quote:

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=17394&cid=4&cname=Business+Today

0 Replies

Quote:

McCain Says Iraq Could End His Career

After the speech, McCain was asked by an audience member if he was "sucking up to the religious right." He drew laughs by responding: "What's wrong with sucking up to everybody?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070223/on-the-2008-trail

McCain just summed up the whole Republican political agenda.

0 Replies

How come there isn't a "Cheney Supporters Aftermath" thread? Laughing

Quote:

Dear Vice President Cheney: Shut Up

James Fallows

...

What is clear is that the worst-positioned person to scold China about its behavior is the one who just did: Vice President Dick Cheney. In his speech yesterday in Australia, the Vice President helpfully observed that the satellite test, plus the buildup of China's military (with a budget still a tiny fraction of America's) was "not consistent with China's stated goal of a peaceful rise."

Let's assume, for argument, that China intends to convert its growing economic power into military strength. Let's assume that its strategic and territorial ambitions are at odds with America's. Let's assume that it intends to upset the international order in countless ways. Let's assume a lot of other things that I don't think are true.

Even if all those things were true, there could be no less effective spokesman for American concern or for the interests of international order than Cheney. This is the man who has refused to answer to his own public for -- well, for anything.

If you haven't spent a lot of time outside the United States recently, you may not been made aware in a painful, humiliating way of how grievously America's moral standing has suffered because of Guantanamo, Abu Grahib, and the general carnage in Iraq.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-fallows/dear-vice-president-chene_b_41932.html

0 Replies

Some experts feel that our invasion of Iraq is the reason that Iran is developing the bomb. Iran's leaders feel that, had Iraq had the bomb, Bush would not have invaded. Thus, Iran's possession of the bomb, and the means to use it, would deter our invasion of its territory.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Some experts feel that our invasion of Iraq is the reason that Iran is developing the bomb. Iran's leaders feel that, had Iraq had the bomb, Bush would not have invaded. Thus, Iran's possession of the bomb, and the means to use it, would deter our invasion of its territory.

If you read the last few days of posts on this issue, you'll see that we all are not in agreement on that. Some think the purpose of a preemptive strike against a rogue nation is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons as they would most likely then use any they have in terrorist threats and/or tactiics. Once they have them, it would be much more difficult to deal with the situation. At least one, maybe others, disagree at least in part with that.

(On other forums) I have debated the question of whether the US would have used the A-bomb against Japan if Japan had the bomb at that time. I do know that we pushed very hard and put enormous resources into making sure we got the bomb before Germany as the prospect of that would have been quite unpleasant in the WWII years. (If I remember my history, it was scientists and engineers from a surrendered Germany who helped us finish the project.)

But one of numerous reasons we invaded Iraq was based on Saddam's nuclear ambitions. It was certainly not the only nor the most important reason at the time, but it was a factor. The prospect of a nuclear weapon in the hands of Saddam Hussein was also not pleasant to think about.

0 Replies

German scientists helped the development of U.S. rocket and missile programs after WWII, but they were not involved to any significant degree in the design of nuclear weapons - it turned out that we were very far ahead of them in this area. (although the principal spy who gave the designs away to the Soviets was a German physicist in the companion British nuclear program - Klaus Fuchs). The principal aid we got from Europe in atomic research was from a truly remarkable group of Hungarian Jews (Szlard, von Neuman, & others) who emigrated here in the mid 1930s and were among the prime movers in the scientific effort.

I assume that Advocate would also apply his theory about the Iranian motivation to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the Israeli nuclear weapon. (Something they developed and tested in collaboration with their former ally, the Apartheidt government of South Africa.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

German scientists helped the development of U.S. rocket and missile programs after WWII, but they were not involved to any significant degree in the design of nuclear weapons - it turned out that we were very far ahead of them in this area. (although the principal spy who gave the designs away to the Soviets was a German physicist in the companion British nuclear program - Klaus Fuchs). The principal aid we got from Europe in atomic research was from a truly remarkable group of Hungarian Jews (Szlard, von Neuman, & others) who emigrated here in the mid 1930s and were among the prime movers in the scientific effort.

You probably forgot Werner Heisenberg or Albert Einstein, but they became like Hans Bethe et. al. US-citizens before the WWII.
(Or the works of Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls in the UK.)

0 Replies

Foxy, Foxy, please give up that bit about Bush being afraid that Iraq would develop the bomb. As you know very well, the administration knew full well that, just before the invasion, there was no such development. Remember the Downing Street Memo, yellowcake, etc.?

Another reason that Iran is after the bomb is Bush's inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil. This told Iran that it was a target of the Bush administration, and that it better develop the nuclear-weapon deterrent.

George, I don't doubt that Israel, working with S. Africa, secured the bomb for reasons similar to those held by Iran.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

German scientists helped the development of U.S. rocket and missile programs after WWII, but they were not involved to any significant degree in the design of nuclear weapons - it turned out that we were very far ahead of them in this area. (although the principal spy who gave the designs away to the Soviets was a German physicist in the companion British nuclear program - Klaus Fuchs). The principal aid we got from Europe in atomic research was from a truly remarkable group of Hungarian Jews (Szlard, von Neuman, & others) who emigrated here in the mid 1930s and were among the prime movers in the scientific effort.

I assume that Advocate would also apply his theory about the Iranian motivation to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the Israeli nuclear weapon. (Something they developed and tested in collaboration with their former ally, the Apartheidt government of South Africa.)

I'm sure you're right. My husband is the expert on that stuff and I don't know as much about it as I wish I did.

The fundamental differences between honorable hawks and doves, however, always comes down to whether it is more moral to retaliate after an attack or preemptively deter an attack. In the case of nuclear weapons, making the right decision about that becomes even more urgent.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I'm sure you're right. My husband is the expert on that stuff and I don't know as much about it as I wish I did.

So I might have quoted him or at least included him in the references/bibliography in a report Laughing

0 Replies

Probably not as he is pretty much self educated on it and has studied on his own. But he knows more about it than the average bear for sure. As does GeorgeOb1 for that matter.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

You probably forgot Werner Heisenberg or Albert Einstein, but they became like Hans Bethe et. al. US-citizens before the WWII.
(Or the works of Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls in the UK.)

Einstein & Heisenberg were, of course, central figures in the early development of relativistic physics, but neither played a direct role in the development of nuclear weapons. Heisenberg's story, and his relationship with Nils Bohr, is very interesting and much debated. My opinion is that he likely was not working seriously to produce a bomb. Bethe was, as you indicated, a central figure in the U.S./British bomb program, which in fact was more of an engineering than a scientific achievement. One should also note the contributions of the Italian Enrico Fermi.

Once the fissionability of the uranium & plutonium isotopes. and their fast/slow neutron capture cross sections were determined (known by 1940) the rest was just the engineering problems of separating the fissionable isotopes, establishing their metalurgical properties and designing a workable fuse. Interestingly most of the plutonium discoveries and work were done by Americans (Glen Seaborg. Lawrence & others).

I was once the general manager of the (now closed) U.S. nuclear weapons plant at Rocky Flats near Denver, Co..

0 Replies

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know