mcg wrote ;
Quote:We went to war based on the lies Saddam told about his WMD program. He was good at it. Fooled every major intelligence agency in the world.
it would have been wonderful if there had been some "intelligence" before going to war . seems that the governments had lost what little "intelligence" they had , but they went ahead with the invasion anyhow - and to hell with the consequences .
strangely enough , none of those making the decision to go to war were in any danger of losing their lives in the war .
hbg
You know, that's a point which is often made, and as often draws an hysterical response from American conservatives.
When Frederick II of Prussia, soon to be known as Frederick the Great, came to the throne, he almost immediately invaded Silesia and took it away from the Austrians. Of course, he also rode to battle at the head of his troops . . .
set :
reminds me of an old comic strip with a bunch of "gnus" barreling along .
the leading "gnu" follows at the back , saying to no one in particular :
"i'm their leader ; shouldn't i be at the front ?" .
(replace the "gnu" with a "leader" of your choice ) .
hbg
Setanta wrote:You know, that's a point which is often made, and as often draws an hysterical response from American conservatives.
When Frederick II of Prussia, soon to be known as Frederick the Great, came to the throne, he almost immediately invaded Silesia and took it away from the Austrians. Of course, he also rode to battle at the head of his troops . . .
You had to go back that far to find the last ruler that lead their troops?
Yes, McWhitey, cowardice has reigned supreme among government leaders for about two and half centuries. However, if you want to go to the trouble of doing the search, i have already listed in another thread the men who held the office of President who served in the armed forces and went in harm's way for their nation. Something which cannot be said of Cheney, Rummy or the Shrub.
It gives them some perspective on what they intend. George Washington lead troops in time of war, and did not go to war in his two terms. Zachary Taylor lead troops in Mexico, and did not go to war when he was in office. Grant, Hayes, Garfield, and Arthur all served in the Civil War, and none of them went to war when they were in office. McKinley fought in the Civil War, and resisted attacking Spain until it was forced on him by the "Forward Policy" Republicans and Joseph Pultizer's yellow press. Theodore Roosevelt served in Cuba, and he never went to war while he was in office. Eisenhower (that's and obvious one) never went to war while he was in office. The Presidents of the United States who have served in war time who have gone to war can be counted on one hand, and most of them felt they had no choice.
... and that includes George Bush.
Whew, Thanks Bill
Cycloptichorn
It's a silly point anyway. I wouldn't want my President spending his time cleaning his own office, doing his own laundry or cutting his own grass either.
Cutting brushwood on extended holidays is okay.
McTag wrote:Cutting brushwood on extended holidays is okay.
Any reasonably safe activity is fine for "time off"... but I sure wouldn't want him doing it as part of his job.
Safe? This is Mr Bush we're talking about here. I wouldn't care to stand anywhere near him if he had a chainsaw- nearly as dangerous as going hunting with Mr Cheney, I imagine.
chiso wrote:War is different now. It's fought with political correctness.
If we (US) fought this war the way we did WWI and WWII it would have been over the same calendar year it started.
IF we're going to fight a WAR - I say fight to win it and end it, as soon as possible. Take names and questions later.
War is grave and ominous, an ultimate declaration. Whether I agree with the reasoning of the declaration or not - if we're putting our troops lives on the line - we owe it to them to fight it, win it, and end it. As soon as possible. But we don't do that any more.
Yeah, you damned fool, you know why war is different now? Its because war itself is now the enemy.
kuvasz wrote:chiso wrote:War is different now. It's fought with political correctness.
If we (US) fought this war the way we did WWI and WWII it would have been over the same calendar year it started.
IF we're going to fight a WAR - I say fight to win it and end it, as soon as possible. Take names and questions later.
War is grave and ominous, an ultimate declaration. Whether I agree with the reasoning of the declaration or not - if we're putting our troops lives on the line - we owe it to them to fight it, win it, and end it. As soon as possible. But we don't do that any more.
Yeah, you damned fool, you know why war is different now? Its because war itself is now the enemy.
"Damned fool" is about right there. Chiso seems to be advocating we bomb flat an impoverished, weakened country which has done us no harm, casualties irrelevant as long as they're not American casualties.
No, on second thoughts, "damned fool" doesn't cover it.
chiso wrote :
Quote:War is different now. It's fought with political correctness.
If we (US) fought this war the way we did WWI and WWII it would have been over the same calendar year it started.
bombing civilians , cluster bombs that will kill for years to come , extensive mining of farmlands ... i guess all that falls under the heading of "political correctness" ?
somebody please wake me up when "political correctness" has ended .
hbg
Someone asked today....these British marines and sailors who have been taken prisoner by the Iranian Navy on the Iraq/Iran waterway and are being questioned at a secret location in Iran:
Should they be treated under Geneva Convention rules or under Guantanamo Bay rules?
