Bush's mistakes

[dsanthony]

Alot of the invective from the left (on this forum and in the real world) states, falsely, that conservatives are blindly following their "fuhrer" and condemn anyone who criticizes his actions. That is of course nonsense.

There is a difference between the "loyal opposition" and those who aid our enemies in times of war.

To further the discussion beyond the slogans from the left, here are some complaints I and others have made about Bush's handling of the war.

1) Bush disbanded the Iraqi military after the war. Like the veterans of many losing armies, that left large numbers of men trained in combat on the loose with no allegiances or discipline. Bad idea.

2) Bush's idealism. His belief that democracies can be implanted among people with no history or understanding of democratic principles. The modern idea of "freedom", the basis of the US and most of Europe, is completely foreign to most Middle Eastern peoples.

3) Bush's bravado in his "bring it on" speech. 'nuff said.

4) Bush's delay in forming a new Iraqi govt. We're now several years after the invasion, and only now is a govt beginning to become a cohesive entity. I urged a "declare victory and go home" position immediately following the war, before the insurgency took shape. Our presence, and the delay in placing Iraqis in positions of authority, weakened our political position.

5) Bush's failure to place enough troops in Iraq to secure the peace. The initial quiet after the overthrow of Hussein led Bush, and others, to believe in the "mission accomplished" banner they stood by. Fair enough. But, after the insurgency began to grow in strength, many conservatives (notably McCain) called for a dramatic increase in US military presence to maintain stability. Bush did not choose that path, and the situation is worse now than it was right after the invasion.


But, as a counterpoint, I'd like to present some of the mistakes attributed to FDR and Truman during WW2. Not saying I agree with all these, but just as a template for criticism.

1) FDR backed Japan into a corner, forcing a conflict when he imposed an embargo on oil and other crucial products to the island nation.

2) FDR took the Soviet Union as an ally, despite the terrors perpetrated by Stalin in the 20s and 30s, and despite the Non-Aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler, which partioned Poland and began the war.

3) FDR placed the primary emphasis of the war on liberating Europe, limiting the troops and supplies to be used in the Pacific War.

4) FDR waited almost 3 years after Pearl Harbor to launch the Normandy invasion. This despite intelligence reports which told him of the atrocities being performed in Europe.

5) FDR (and Eisenhower) chose to follow a broad front campaign in Europe, instead of a powerful thrust which might have ended the war sooner.

6) FDR (and Eisenhower and Truman) naively let Stalin take possession of Eastern Europe, despite warnings from Churchill, Patton and others that he planned to impose communism on all the lands he captured.

7) FDR denounced Germany for the cilivian bombings in England and other places, then used the same tactics against German and Japanese cities.

8) Lax security (and assistance from US intelligence agencies) allowed many former Nazis to flee Europe, including many who fled to the US and joined our intelligence and military establishment.

9) FDR and Truman both refused to let the Japanese know that they could retain their emporer if they surrendered. This was a cause many Japanese used to continue the war. After demanding unconditional surrender, Truman still allowed the emporer to maintain his position.

10) Truman used nuclear weapons on Japan, despite the possibility that Japan would have surrendered without their deployment.


No war is perfectly executed.

[BoogyMan]

2)Â*Â*FDR took the Soviet Union as an ally, despite the terrors perpetrated by Stalin in the 20s and 30s, and despite the Non-Aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler, which partioned Poland and began the war.

This was a mistake?Â*Â*Egads!Â*Â*We needed the USSR, however unlikely, as an ally in the bloody campaign of WWII.

10) Truman used nuclear weapons on Japan, despite the possibility that Japan would have surrendered without their deployment.

The sky might have fallen too, but it didn't.Â*Â*Dropping the nuclear bomb on Japan kept us from having to try and occupy Japan.Â*Â*This was emphatically *NOT* a mistake!Â*Â*Egads!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

No war is perfectly executed.

Really? No kidding.

You really made this post for nothing now didn't you.

[dsanthony]

No war is perfectly executed.

Really?Â*Â*No kidding.

You really made this post for nothing now didn't you.


Thanks for showing that people on the right can be as pig-headed as those on the left. If you have an intelligent and intelligible response, please share. If you're afraid to really examine Bush's conduct of the war, then perhaps Alonzo and the other leftists are right.

As for the preceding post, the topic was not FDR, but Bush's conduct. He mised the point entirely.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I'm serious. No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy. That's the oldest rule of warfare.

I think you were terribly mistaken on your points on WW II and the conduct. The exception being the results of the Yalta Conference.

You want a summary of your mistakes?

1) FDR backed Japan into a corner, forcing a conflict when he imposed an embargo on oil and other crucial products to the island nation.

They had no choice. Economic sanctions were put in place for Japan's march across Asia. There was no ability to negotiate with them. When they took the Dutch East Indies they had plenty of access to natural resources that we embargoed.

2) FDR took the Soviet Union as an ally, despite the terrors perpetrated by Stalin in the 20s and 30s, and despite the Non-Aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler, which partioned Poland and began the war.

Second oldest axiom in war. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

3) FDR placed the primary emphasis of the war on liberating Europe, limiting the troops and supplies to be used in the Pacific War.

Absolutely not true. The PTO had many state of the art aircraft types that fought exclusively in the Pacific. The F4U Corisair and B-29 as example never saw action in the European theater.

The PTO was fought, on the ground, almost exclusively by the Marine Corps who were not participating in great numbers in the European theater.

The navy, likewise, was concentrated in a far greater percentage in the Pacific than Europe. The split was almost 60/40. The Pacific war was far more carrier intensive than convoy protection duty in the North Atlantic. Also the majority of battleships, including the Iowa class being exclusively PTO, were tasked to naval operations.

When it came time for fire support for Normandy the heaviest U.S. Navy ships were typically heavy cruisers and destroyers. Not battleships.

This mostly had to do with the Germans having insignificant surface fleet capability after the loss of their pocket battleships.

4) FDR waited almost 3 years after Pearl Harbor to launch the Normandy invasion. This despite intelligence reports which told him of the atrocities being performed in Europe.

You cannot rush into an amphibious invasion without a 5-1 numerical and logistical advantage against an entrenched battle experienced army. To do so is suicidal.

Even on June 5, 1944 success was not a given.

Churchill told Eisenhower that if the invasion failed America could regroup and try again but it might have been the very end of the British militarily.

5) FDR (and Eisenhower) chose to follow a broad front campaign in Europe, instead of a powerful thrust which might have ended the war sooner.

You. Have. No. Idea. What. You're. Talking. About.

6) FDR (and Eisenhower and Truman) naively let Stalin take possession of Eastern Europe, despite warnings from Churchill, Patton and others that he planned to impose communism on all the lands he captured.

They knew exactly what was going to happen. However they did not want a continuation of hostilities as America was growing war weary.

The Russians wanted a buffer from the West given the fact they had just lost 25 million people to the German Wermacht and Luftwaffe. They were going to extend territory regardless. It was either going to be peacefully or by force.

7) FDR denounced Germany for the cilivian bombings in England and other places, then used the same tactics against German and Japanese cities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Cry me a river. You're 30 years early for an effective LGB. What would you have proposed.

8) Lax security (and assistance from US intelligence agencies) allowed many former Nazis to flee Europe, including many who fled to the US and joined our intelligence and military establishment.

You cannot secure Europe by surrender. You still had friendly to Germany nations (Spain) and neutrals (Swiss) that had no problem letting Germans transit through their country on their way to exile.

You're also terribly misguided where you assume they fled here and signed up under our noses without knowing who they were. We recruited countless ex-Nazis to serve in intelligence and military programs. There would have been no Apollo project without Wener Von Braun.

The Russians did the same thing, by gunpoint, not coersion or making friendly offers. Those Germans were never heard from again.

9) FDR and Truman both refused to let the Japanese know that they could retain their emporer if they surrendered. This was a cause many Japanese used to continue the war. After demanding unconditional surrender, Truman still allowed the emporer to maintain his position.

Does that really matter? Unconditional surrender means just that. Unconditional surrender.

We allowed them to retain the Emperor as a figurehead, like the Queen of England. That would not have ended the war if that was the known condition.

10) Truman used nuclear weapons on Japan, despite the possibility that Japan would have surrendered without their deployment.

Look up "Operation Coronet". The estimates were 1,000,000 American dead and 15,000,000 Japanese dead.

We did them, us and the world a favor.

[dsanthony]

I'm serious.Â*Â*No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy.Â*Â*That's the oldest rule of warfare.

I think you were terribly mistaken on your points on WW II and the conduct.Â*Â*The exception being the results of the Yalta Conference.

You want a summary of your mistakes?

1) FDR backed Japan into a corner, forcing a conflict when he imposed an embargo on oil and other crucial products to the island nation.

They had no choice.Â*Â*Economic sanctions were put in place for Japan's march across Asia.Â*Â* There was no ability to negotiate with them.Â*Â*When they took the Dutch East Indies they had plenty of access to natural resources that we embargoed.

2) FDR took the Soviet Union as an ally, despite the terrors perpetrated by Stalin in the 20s and 30s, and despite the Non-Aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler, which partioned Poland and began the war.

Second oldest axiom in war.Â*Â*The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

3) FDR placed the primary emphasis of the war on liberating Europe, limiting the troops and supplies to be used in the Pacific War.

Absolutely not true.Â*Â*The PTO had many state of the art aircraft types that fought exclusively in the Pacific.Â*Â*The F4U Corisair and B-29 as example never saw action in the European theater.

The PTO was fought, on the ground, almost exclusively by the Marine Corps who were not participating in great numbers in the European theater.

The navy, likewise,Â*Â*was concentrated in a far greater percentage in the Pacific than Europe.Â*Â*The split was almost 60/40.Â*Â*The Pacific war was far more carrier intensive than convoy protection duty in the North Atlantic.Â*Â*Also the majority of battleships, including the Iowa class being exclusively PTO, were tasked to navalÂ*Â*operations.

When it came time for fire support for Normandy the heaviest U.S. Navy ships were typically heavy cruisers and destroyers.Â*Â*Not battleships.

This mostly had to do with the Germans having insignificant surface fleet capability after the loss of their pocket battleships.

4) FDR waited almost 3 years after Pearl Harbor to launch the Normandy invasion. This despite intelligence reports which told him of the atrocities being performed in Europe.

You cannot rush into an amphibious invasion without a 5-1 numerical and logistical advantage against an entrenched battle experienced army.Â*Â*To do so is suicidal.

Even on June 5, 1944 success was not a given.

Churchill told Eisenhower that if the invasion failed America could regroup and try again but it might have been the very end of the British militarily.

5) FDR (and Eisenhower) chose to follow a broad front campaign in Europe, instead of a powerful thrust which might have ended the war sooner.

You.Â*Â*Have.Â*Â*No.Â*Â*Idea.Â*Â*What.Â*Â*You're. *Â*Talking.Â*Â*About.

6) FDR (and Eisenhower and Truman) naively let Stalin take possession of Eastern Europe, despite warnings from Churchill, Patton and others that he planned to impose communism on all the lands he captured.

They knew exactly what was going to happen.Â*Â*However they did not want a continuation of hostilities as America was growing war weary.

The Russians wanted a buffer from the West given the fact they had just lost 25 million people to the German Wermacht and Luftwaffe.Â*Â*They were going to extend territory regardless.Â*Â*It was either going to be peacefully or by force.

7) FDR denounced Germany for the cilivian bombings in England and other places, then used the same tactics against German and Japanese cities.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.Â*Â*Cry me a river.Â*Â*You're 30 years early for an effective LGB.Â*Â*What would you have proposed.

8) Lax security (and assistance from US intelligence agencies) allowed many former Nazis to flee Europe, including many who fled to the US and joined our intelligence and military establishment.

You cannot secure Europe by surrender.Â*Â*You still had friendly to Germany nations (Spain) and neutrals (Swiss) that had no problem letting Germans transit through their country on their way to exile.

You're also terribly misguided where you assume they fled here and signed up under our noses without knowing who they were.Â*Â*We recruited countless ex-Nazis to serve in intelligence and military programs.Â*Â*There would have been no Apollo project without Wener Von Braun.

The Russians did the same thing, by gunpoint, not coersion or making friendly offers.Â*Â*Those Germans were never heard from again.

9) FDR and Truman both refused to let the Japanese know that they could retain their emporer if they surrendered. This was a cause many Japanese used to continue the war. After demanding unconditional surrender, Truman still allowed the emporer to maintain his position.

Does that really matter?Â*Â*Unconditional surrender means just that.Â*Â*Unconditional surrender.

We allowed them to retain the Emperor as a figurehead, like the Queen of England.Â*Â*That would not have ended the war if that was the known condition.

10) Truman used nuclear weapons on Japan, despite the possibility that Japan would have surrendered without their deployment.

Look up "Operation Coronet".Â*Â*The estimates were 1,000,000 American dead and 15,000,000 Japanese dead.

We did them, us and the world a favor.


Sigh... as I said, the topic of the post was Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq, NOT FDR's conduct of WW2. I made the comparison only to show that it is acceptable to differ with the conduct of the war without being disloyal to the US or its troops.

As i wrote clearly in my original post, I do not necessarily agree with all the criticisms of FDR and Truman. They were not the topic I was addressing, and I won't waste time in this thread arguing them. If you're really interested, copy your post to a different forum (history?) and we can argue it there.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You can't make the analogy of one war's mistakes to another war's mistake without it being the topic.

If your analaogy is flawed, your post is flawed.

[BoogyMan]

You can't make the analogy of one war's mistakes to another war's mistake without it being the topic.

If your analaogy is flawed, your post is flawed.


Egads that is the most sentient comment of the day!Â*Â*We have a winner! :)

[dsanthony]

You can't make the analogy of one war's mistakes to another war's mistake without it being the topic.

If your analaogy is flawed, your post is flawed.


Egads that is the most sentient comment of the day!Â*Â*We have a winner! :)


No, you have two losers. As I said, I included the WW2 references to show that "loyal opposition" can differ with the president on the conduct of the war, and still remain loyal to the nation. That's a pretty straightforward point. If you're not getting it, I wonder if you're pulling an Alonzo? Fact is, for 10 posts now no conservative has addressed the issue of Bush's leadership in the war.

Furthermore (and yet again)... I stated clearly that the WW2 points I raised were examples of criticism of FDR and Truman--they are NOT criticisms I necessarily shared or agreed with. Read the original post again.

Or better yet, address the issue of Bush's leadership and stop acting like Democrats.

[lily]

5) Bush's failure to place enough troops in Iraq to secure the peace. The initial quiet after the overthrow of Hussein led Bush, and others, to believe in the "mission accomplished" banner they stood by. Fair enough. But, after the insurgency began to grow in strength, many conservatives (notably McCain) called for a dramatic increase in US military presence to maintain stability. Bush did not choose that path, and the situation is worse now than it was right after the invasion.

As much as I'd like to lay this at Bush's feet, the blame goes directly to Rumsfailed.

I'd also like to add a #6........my particular "favorite"......who in the hell thought it was good strategy to let the enemy go WITH THEIR WEAPONS?

[dsanthony]

5) Bush's failure to place enough troops in Iraq to secure the peace. The initial quiet after the overthrow of Hussein led Bush, and others, to believe in the "mission accomplished" banner they stood by. Fair enough. But, after the insurgency began to grow in strength, many conservatives (notably McCain) called for a dramatic increase in US military presence to maintain stability. Bush did not choose that path, and the situation is worse now than it was right after the invasion.

As much as I'd like to lay this at Bush's feet, the blame goes directly to Rumsfailed.

I'd also like to add a #6........my particular "favorite"......who in the hell thought it was good strategy to let the enemy go WITH THEIR WEAPONS?


Reasonable criticism. But, as c in c, the ultimate responsibility lues with bush.

[lily]

Hey.........I'm easy........Bush it is!:D

[PittsburghAfterDark]

So if your point was about Bush's conduct of the Iraq war why even bother with WWII analogies?

Why not throw your post into one of the countless Bush sucks, Iraq is a lost cause threads? I'm sure we have some somewhere. /sarcasm

Your problems with Bush's conduct are as flawed .

1. The Iraqi army was disbanded because they were loyal to Sadaam Hussein and the Ba'athist party first and the safety and security of Iraq second.

2. Bush's idealism? Oh, so now you want to argue that Arabs and Kurds are inferior to great Western minds and economic democracies and can't handle self determination?

3. Bring it on. Yeah, what should he have said? We're terrified of people with IED's and AK-47's and Dragonov sniper rifles. The U.S. military is no match for a rag tag guerrilla war with dozens of factions with conflicting viewpoints?

4. The Federal Republic of Germany was declared on October 7, 1949 a full 4+ years after Nazi surrender. They had the full cooperation of the Americans in rebuilding their government and Germans, from the time of surrender, were appointed mayors, governors etc.

Japan's constitution was approved May 3, 1947. However it was more or less imposed on Japan by McArthur as opposed to the German led and bred government.

"The Coalition Provisional Authority, which temporarily administered Iraq after the invasion, transferred full governmental authority on 28 June 2004, to the Iraqi Interim Government (IG), which governed under the Transitional Administrative Law for Iraq (TAL). Under the TAL, elections for a 275-member Transitional National Assembly (TNA) were held in Iraq on 30 January 2005. Following these elections, the Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG) assumed office. The TNA was charged with drafting Iraq's permanent constitution, which was approved in a 15 October 2005 constitutional referendum. An election under the constitution for a 275-member Council of Representatives (CoR) was held in December 2005. The CoR approval in the selection of most of the cabinet ministers on 20 May 2006 marked the transition from the ITG to Iraq's full-term government."
Link (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)

I don't see that in being any more in line or out of line of defeating Germany or Japan.

5. You have no idea what it takes to "secure the peace". The only thing you care about is that there's conflict you can blame on someone politicall you disagree with.

You don't even have a guesstimate on what it would take and neither does any opposition to the President. All we hear from the opposition is "more" or "not enough".

That's not an effective alternative.

There, I answered your inane points.






On both wars.

[dsanthony]

Hey.........I'm easy........Bush it is!:D


Hate to say it, lily, but you're being much more reasonable than the cons in this thread...

[dsanthony]

1. The Iraqi army was disbanded because they were loyal to Sadaam Hussein and the Ba'athist party first and the safety and security of Iraq second.

It is a common truism. You keep your friends close and your enemies closer. The army, intact, could have been a stabilizing force under supervision of the US military. They could have been used to rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq. Let loose, they were just terrorists waiting for a chance to strike.

2. Bush's idealism?Â*Â*Oh, so now you want to argue that Arabs and Kurds are inferior to great Western minds and economic democracies and can't handle self determination?

Inferior is your word, not mine. Democracy was the culmination of centuries of cultural evolution. You can no more install democracy in the Middle East than you could have went back to 14th century Europe and install democracy there. It was a fool's errand.

3. Bring it on.Â*Â*Yeah, what should he have said?Â*Â*We're terrified of people with IED's and AK-47's and Dragonov sniper rifles.Â*Â*The U.S. military is no match for a rag tag guerrilla war with dozens of factions with conflicting viewpoints?

How about a reasonable statement? We call on the people of Iraq to work with us to expedite the turn over of power to Iraqi officials. That would have been a good start.

4. The Federal Republic of Germany was declared on October 7, 1949 a full 4+ years after Nazi surrender.Â*Â*They had the full cooperation of the Americans in rebuilding their government and Germans, from the time of surrender, were appointed mayors, governors etc.

Japan's constitution was approved May 3, 1947.Â*Â*However it was more or less imposed on Japan by McArthur as opposed to the German led and bred government.Â*Â*

"The Coalition Provisional Authority, which temporarily administered Iraq after the invasion, transferred full governmental authority on 28 June 2004, to the Iraqi Interim Government (IG), which governed under the Transitional Administrative Law for Iraq (TAL). Under the TAL, elections for a 275-member Transitional National Assembly (TNA) were held in Iraq on 30 January 2005. Following these elections, the Iraqi Transitional Government (ITG) assumed office. The TNA was charged with drafting Iraq's permanent constitution, which was approved in a 15 October 2005 constitutional referendum. An election under the constitution for a 275-member Council of Representatives (CoR) was held in December 2005. The CoR approval in the selection of most of the cabinet ministers on 20 May 2006 marked the transition from the ITG to Iraq's full-term government."
Link (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)

I don't see that in being any more in line or out of line of defeating Germany or Japan.

In both Germany and Japan, we had overwhelming military superiority over a emotionally and psychologically defeated people. After years of war and unrivaled devastation, the Germans and Japanese were ready for peace. Further, the issues in Germany and Japan were not centuries old religious battles.

In Iraq, we occupied the country after a few weeks of war. The people were not defeated psychologically. And, in both Germany and Japan, the entire world had united against them. After their fall, they had no allies or support from outside sources. IN Iraq, the nation is surrounded by forces hostile to the US, eager for confrontation. Finally, Germany and Japan were occupied by large military forces which kept order. That also was lacking in Iraq.

5. You have no idea what it takes to "secure the peace".Â*Â*The only thing you care about is that there's conflict you can blame on someone politicall you disagree with.

This is totally unrelated to the post I wrote.

[Nathan Brazil]

1)Â*Â*Bush disbanded the Iraqi military after the war.Â*Â*Like the veterans of many losing armies, that left large numbers of men trained in combat on the loose with no allegiances or discipline.Â*Â*Bad idea.

Yes, bad idea. We should have rounded them up in concentration camps and lined them up for gas chambers.

The "bad idea" was his failure to secure the government offices that kept the records of who the informers were and who the international contacts were.

2)Â*Â*Bush's idealism.Â*Â*His belief that democracies can be implanted among people with no history or understanding of democratic principles.Â*Â*The modern idea of "freedom", the basis of the US and most of Europe, is completely foreign to most Middle Eastern peoples.

The alternative? Setting up a monarchy who could only be a puppet?

3) Bush's bravado in his "bring it on" speech.Â*Â*'nuff said.

That's because it was the right thing to say, and do. Would you rather have terrorists killing women and children in Bagdhad or Boston? It's not like Iran and Syria were going to do anything else, anyway. Duh.

4)Â*Â*Bush's delay in forming a new Iraqi govt.Â*Â*We're now several years after the invasion, and only now is a govt beginning to become a cohesive entity.

Ah, the instant gratification generation. First you complain that Iraq doesn't have a tradition of democracy, then you're bitching because you think it's taking to long to set one up. You vote Democrat, I can tell.

I urged a "declare victory and go home" position immediately following the war, before the insurgency took shape.

And, not only do you vote Democrat, you don't understand the flow of history. We broke the place, and then you're suggesting we should have walked away from it. And if we did that, I know that you'd be crying about how awful we were for letting those poor Iraqi's suffer like that, and how we did nothing but create a power vacuum and establish yet another terrorist state.

Our presence, and the delay in placing Iraqis in positions of authority, weakened our political position.

No it hasn't. Walking away like you suggested would have ruined our standing. Everywhere. Not only that, since we're attempting to establish a democracy, our function wasn't to place Iraqis in positions of authority but to help them select those leaders the people desired.

That's what democracy is about.

5)Â*Â*Bush's failure to place enough troops in Iraq to secure the peace.

Uh-huh. And just how many troops would that be? Take a guess, I'll let you round it off to the nearest million. You'll still be wrong.

But, after the insurgency began to grow in strength, many conservatives (notably McCain) called for a dramatic increase in US military presence to maintain stability.Â*Â*Bush did not choose that path, and the situation is worse now than it was right after the invasion.

McCain ain't a conservative, he's a traitor. Don't you forget it.

As far as I can tell, it hasn't been a lack of troops that's been a problem, it's a lack of will to treat the enemy like the enemy. We had Zarqawi pinned down in a fort, but let him go only to spend nearly two years hunting for him and killing him later. Blowing up the fort he was in with a few bombs from the air would have decapitated the guerrilla movement and told the rest of the world that a building's a building, and if it's got the enemy hiding in it, we'll treat their mosques just like they treated our World Trade Center.

If the muslims don't like having their holy forts blown up, they'll start demanding the terrorists find other mosques to hide in.

That's why the situation has grown to the point it has, lack of political will to do the job. Bush isn't a Lincoln, after all.

1) FDR backed Japan into a corner, forcing a conflict when he imposed an embargo on oil and other crucial products to the island nation.

Yeah, after Japan's Imperial Army bombed the Panay, we should have surrendered forthwith. Naturally we should have continued supplying Japan with all the steel and oil it needed to rape Nanking even more thorouglhly than it did. It's all our fault.

Japan made a choice. Too bad for them they made the wrong one. Why did they make that choice? In part because they thought the US would fold up and play frenchman. Real Americans fight.

2)Â*Â*FDR took the Soviet Union as an ally, despite the terrors perpetrated by Stalin in the 20s and 30s, and despite the Non-Aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler, which partioned Poland and began the war.

FDR was a communist sympathizer with communists on his cabinet.

3) FDR placed the primary emphasis of the war on liberating Europe, limiting the troops and supplies to be used in the Pacific War.

That's because his buddy was Stalin. That, and we didn't really have a need for a large army in the Pacific. It's a little too deep to wade, after all.

4) FDR waited almost 3 years after Pearl Harbor to launch the Normandy invasion.Â*Â*This despite intelligence reports which told him of the atrocities being performed in Europe.

So? We were fighting a war, not running a rescue operation.

5) FDR (and Eisenhower) chose to follow a broad front campaign in Europe, instead of a powerful thrust which might have ended the war sooner.

Or which could have been pinched off like a turd and flushed away by the Germans.

6) FDR (and Eisenhower and Truman) naively let Stalin take possession of Eastern Europe, despite warnings from Churchill, Patton and others that he planned to impose communism on all the lands he captured.

That's FDR for ya, he was a communist sympathizer to the very end.

7)Â*Â*FDR denounced Germany for the cilivian bombings in England and other places, then used the same tactics against German and Japanese cities.

That's okay, that's what civillians are for. They make the economies that run the war machine, so they're part of the war machine, and thus fair game. If they don't like being part of the game, they shouldn't have elected Hitler, or worshipped a man as a god, as they did in Japan.

The stupid do get punished, in time.

8) Lax security (and assistance from US intelligence agencies) allowed many former Nazis to flee Europe, including many who fled to the US and joined our intelligence and military establishment.

Well, that explains the radicalism of the Democratic Party.

9) FDR and Truman both refused to let the Japanese know that they could retain their emporer if they surrendered.Â*Â*This was a cause many Japanese used to continue the war.Â*Â*After demanding unconditional surrender, Truman still allowed the emporer to maintain his position.Â*Â*

So? He wasn't allowed to remain divine. And the "many japanese" are the warriors in control of the cabinet, not the masses of incendiary targets on the ground. Even Hirohito couldn't make those men surrender to the Americans.

10) Truman used nuclear weapons on Japan, despite the possibility that Japan would have surrendered without their deployment.

Tough shit on that. Truman's responsibility began and ended with reducing the cost in American lives, not in protecting the lives of the enemy. With the bomb in our possession, he would have been impeached, and rightfully so, if he refused to use it on the grounds that it would have killed some of the enemy.

We fire bombed Kyoto and in one raid killed more people than either single nuclear weapon did. Then we fire bombed Tokyo, and just about everywhere else. Do you think it makes difference if someone dies in a fire caused by a radiation blast than by napalm?

[dsanthony]

1)Â*Â*Bush disbanded the Iraqi military after the war.Â*Â*Like the veterans of many losing armies, that left large numbers of men trained in combat on the loose with no allegiances or discipline.Â*Â*Bad idea.

Yes, bad idea.Â*Â*We should have rounded them up in concentration camps and lined them up for gas chambers.

The "bad idea" was his failure to secure the government offices that kept the records of who the informers were and who the international contacts were.

2)Â*Â*Bush's idealism.Â*Â*His belief that democracies can be implanted among people with no history or understanding of democratic principles.Â*Â*The modern idea of "freedom", the basis of the US and most of Europe, is completely foreign to most Middle Eastern peoples.

The alternative?Â*Â*Setting up a monarchy who could only be a puppet?Â*Â*

3) Bush's bravado in his "bring it on" speech.Â*Â*'nuff said.

That's because it was the right thing to say, and do.Â*Â*Would you rather have terrorists killing women and children in Bagdhad or Boston?Â*Â*It's not like Iran and Syria were going to do anything else, anyway.Â*Â*Duh.

4)Â*Â*Bush's delay in forming a new Iraqi govt.Â*Â*We're now several years after the invasion, and only now is a govt beginning to become a cohesive entity.

Ah, the instant gratification generation.Â*Â*First you complain that Iraq doesn't have a tradition of democracy, then you're bitching because you think it's taking to long to set one up.Â*Â*You vote Democrat, I can tell.

I urged a "declare victory and go home" position immediately following the war, before the insurgency took shape.

And, not only do you vote Democrat, you don't understand the flow of history.Â*Â*We broke the place, and then you're suggesting we should have walked away from it.Â*Â*And if we did that, I know that you'd be crying about how awful we were for letting those poor Iraqi's suffer like that, and how we did nothing but create a power vacuum and establish yet another terrorist state.

Our presence, and the delay in placing Iraqis in positions of authority, weakened our political position.

No it hasn't.Â*Â*Walking away like you suggested would have ruined our standing.Â*Â*Everywhere.Â*Â*Not only that, since we're attempting to establish a democracy, our function wasn't to place Iraqis in positions of authority but to help them select those leaders the people desired.

That's what democracy is about.

5)Â*Â*Bush's failure to place enough troops in Iraq to secure the peace.

Uh-huh.Â*Â*And just how many troops would that be?Â*Â*Take a guess, I'll let you round it off to the nearest million.Â*Â*You'll still be wrong.

But, after the insurgency began to grow in strength, many conservatives (notably McCain) called for a dramatic increase in US military presence to maintain stability.Â*Â*Bush did not choose that path, and the situation is worse now than it was right after the invasion.

McCain ain't a conservative, he's a traitor.Â*Â*Don't you forget it.

As far as I can tell, it hasn't been a lack of troops that's been a problem, it's a lack of will to treat the enemy like the enemy.Â*Â*We had Zarqawi pinned down in a fort, but let him go only to spend nearly two years hunting for him and killing him later.Â*Â*Blowing up the fort he was in with a few bombs from the air would have decapitated the guerrilla movement and told the rest of the world that a building's a building, and if it's got the enemy hiding in it, we'll treat their mosques just like they treated our World Trade Center.

If the muslims don't like having their holy forts blown up, they'll start demanding the terrorists find other mosques to hide in.

That's why the situation has grown to the point it has, lack of political will to do the job.Â*Â*Bush isn't a Lincoln, after all.

1) FDR backed Japan into a corner, forcing a conflict when he imposed an embargo on oil and other crucial products to the island nation.

Yeah, after Japan's Imperial Army bombed the Panay, we should have surrendered forthwith.Â*Â*Naturally we should have continued supplying Japan with all the steel and oil it needed to rape Nanking even more thorouglhly than it did.Â*Â*It's all our fault.

Japan made a choice.Â*Â*Too bad for them they made the wrong one.Â*Â*Why did they make that choice?Â*Â*In part because they thought the US would fold up and play frenchman.Â*Â*Real Americans fight.

2)Â*Â*FDR took the Soviet Union as an ally, despite the terrors perpetrated by Stalin in the 20s and 30s, and despite the Non-Aggression pact Stalin signed with Hitler, which partioned Poland and began the war.

FDR was a communist sympathizer with communists on his cabinet.Â*Â*

3) FDR placed the primary emphasis of the war on liberating Europe, limiting the troops and supplies to be used in the Pacific War.

That's because his buddy was Stalin.Â*Â*That, and we didn't really have a need for a large army in the Pacific.Â*Â*It's a little too deep to wade, after all.

4) FDR waited almost 3 years after Pearl Harbor to launch the Normandy invasion.Â*Â*This despite intelligence reports which told him of the atrocities being performed in Europe.

So?Â*Â*We were fighting a war, not running a rescue operation.

5) FDR (and Eisenhower) chose to follow a broad front campaign in Europe, instead of a powerful thrust which might have ended the war sooner.

Or which could have been pinched off like a turd and flushed away by the Germans.

6) FDR (and Eisenhower and Truman) naively let Stalin take possession of Eastern Europe, despite warnings from Churchill, Patton and others that he planned to impose communism on all the lands he captured.

That's FDR for ya, he was a communist sympathizer to the very end.

7)Â*Â*FDR denounced Germany for the cilivian bombings in England and other places, then used the same tactics against German and Japanese cities.

That's okay, that's what civillians are for.Â*Â*They make the economies that run the war machine, so they're part of the war machine, and thus fair game.Â*Â*If they don't like being part of the game, they shouldn't have elected Hitler, or worshipped a man as a god, as they did in Japan.

The stupid do get punished, in time.

8) Lax security (and assistance from US intelligence agencies) allowed many former Nazis to flee Europe, including many who fled to the US and joined our intelligence and military establishment.

Well, that explains the radicalism of the Democratic Party.

9) FDR and Truman both refused to let the Japanese know that they could retain their emporer if they surrendered.Â*Â*This was a cause many Japanese used to continue the war.Â*Â*After demanding unconditional surrender, Truman still allowed the emporer to maintain his position.Â*Â*

So?Â*Â*He wasn't allowed to remain divine.Â*Â*And the "many japanese" are the warriors in control of the cabinet, not the masses of incendiary targets on the ground.Â*Â*Even Hirohito couldn't make those men surrender to the Americans.Â*Â*

10) Truman used nuclear weapons on Japan, despite the possibility that Japan would have surrendered without their deployment.

Tough shit on that.Â*Â*Truman's responsibility began and ended with reducing the cost in American lives, not in protecting the lives of the enemy.Â*Â* With the bomb in our possession, he would have been impeached, and rightfully so, if he refused to use it on the grounds that it would have killed some of the enemy.

We fire bombed Kyoto and in one raid killed more people than either single nuclear weapon did.Â*Â* Then we fire bombed Tokyo, and just about everywhere else.Â*Â*Do you think it makes difference if someone dies in a fire caused by a radiation blast than by napalm?




McCain ain't a conservative, he's a traitor. Don't you forget it.

You're a zealot and simple partisan.

[Nathan Brazil]

As I said, I included the WW2 references to show that "loyal opposition" can differ with the president on the conduct of the war, and still remain loyal to the nation.

But the operation in Iraq isn't opposed by loyalists, but by Demcorats, and we've got almost forty years of history of them betraying this country to make domestic political gain.

The Dems surrendered South Vietnam. They attempted to destroy our military, both under Carter and under Clinton, and we've had to pay for fixing it when they left. They arguing persistently for surrendering US interests to global governance. And now they're trying to run away from our obligations in Iraq.

[Nathan Brazil]

Inferior is your word, not mine.Â*Â*Democracy was the culmination of centuries of cultural evolution.Â*Â*You can no more install democracy in the Middle East than you could have went back to 14th century Europe and install democracy there.Â*Â*It was a fool's errand.

Okay, let's just kill 'em all. I've no objection to that, if they don't have what it takes to grow up.

How about a reasonable statement?Â*Â*We call on the people of Iraq to work with us to expedite the turn over of power to Iraqi officials.Â*Â*That would have been a good start.

And what do you call it when we establish the security necessary to have safe and honest elections, and then work with the officials elected to improve their control over the country?

[Nathan Brazil]

[quote=dsanthony]McCain ain't a conservative, he's a traitor. Don't you forget it.

You're a zealot and simple partisan.

No, just honest and observant.

[Rider]

A great example of the actions of a loyal opposition is when the Republican nominee for president against Roosevelt during the war announced that he would not use wartime mistakes or failures in his campaign. If that meant he would lose the election, so be it.
Can you imagine a Democrat saying something like that now? Me neither!

[dsanthony]

A great example of the actions of a loyal opposition is when the Republican nominee for president against Roosevelt during the war announced that he would not use wartime mistakes or failures in his campaign. If that meant he would lose the election, so be it.
Can you imagine a Democrat saying something like that now? Me neither!


The Dems, or the most vocal of them, would prefer to see America lose the war. That is sad and frightening.

[lily]

The Dems, or the most vocal of them, would prefer to see America lose the war. That is sad and frightening.
I think you're confusing pointing out that Plan A is not working.....why isn't there a plan B......as you stated in your OP.

What wouldÂ*Â*the Democrats possibly have to gain, by loosing this war?

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over when it didn't work in the first place.

[Nathan Brazil]

What wouldÂ*Â*the Democrats possibly have to gain, by loosing this war?

You can't not know. It's a building called the White House.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over when it didn't work in the first place.

Is that why surrender monkeys never surrender surrendering?

[Alonzo]

This is priceless

[dsanthony]

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over when it didn't work in the first place.

Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...

You're right, the Dems are insane. Look at the way they're lynching Liebermann in CT right now. He's the only Dem worth a dam since LBJ was eaten alive by Kerry and Fonda.

[lily]

WOW! Way to change the subject.........but ok.......

You're right, the Dems are insane.Â*Â*Look at the way they're lynching Liebermann in CT right now.Â*Â*He's the only Dem worth a dam since LBJ was eaten alive by Kerry and Fonda.

Lieberman would do to the DemocraticÂ*Â*party what Mc Cain will and Bush has done to the Republican party. If you can't see that he's riding Bush's coat tails as his last chance to get into the Whitehouse........then I suggest you vote for him and keep the Republican party alive!

[dsanthony]

WOW! Way to change the subject.........but ok.......

You're right, the Dems are insane.Â*Â*Look at the way they're lynching Liebermann in CT right now.Â*Â*He's the only Dem worth a dam since LBJ was eaten alive by Kerry and Fonda.

Lieberman would do to the DemocraticÂ*Â*party what Mc Cain will and Bush has done to the Republican party. If you can't see that he's riding Bush's coat tails as his last chance to get into the Whitehouse........then I suggest you vote for him and keep the Republican party alive!


And I suggest you continue (you as in dems) attacking Liebermann, and prove to the American people that you worship weakness over strength.

[Rider]

The Democrat base and many of their leaders in government are in the grip of a white hot blinding hatred of Bush and will do or say anything to damage him politically. If the Dems win the house this year we will almost certainly see an attempt at impeachment. Their hatred and resulting tantrums stand to cause them long term damage and Lieberman (and many other Dems) knows this. That all of this is happening during a time of war may bring their party down.

Terrorists around the world are "high fiving" each other and laughing their asses off.

[lily]

WOW! Way to change the subject.........but ok.......

You're right, the Dems are insane.Â*Â*Look at the way they're lynching Liebermann in CT right now.Â*Â*He's the only Dem worth a dam since LBJ was eaten alive by Kerry and Fonda.

Lieberman would do to the DemocraticÂ*Â*party what Mc Cain will and Bush has done to the Republican party. If you can't see that he's riding Bush's coat tails as his last chance to get into the Whitehouse........then I suggest you vote for him and keep the Republican party alive!


And I suggest you continue (you as in dems) attacking Liebermann, and prove to the American people that you worship weakness over strength.


Huh???

[lily]

Rider


The Democrat base and many of their leaders in government are in the grip of a white hot blinding hatred of Bush and will do or say anything to damage him politically. If the Dems win the house this year we will almost certainly see an attempt at impeachment. Their hatred and resulting tantrums stand to cause themÂ*Â*long term damage and Lieberman (and many other Dems) knows this. That all of this is happening during a time of war may bring their party down.
Talk about typing in lockstep. I don't know why Republicans can't figure out that Democrats don't hate Bush. We hate what he has done to this country.

Terrorists around the world are "high fiving" each other and laughing their asses off.

Holy shit! I thought that propaganda was over and done with....an oldy but a goody!

[Rider]

Lily,
What do you mean by "typing in lockstep"? Look, I know that not all Democrats hate Bush, but how can you deny that many Dems, some of their top leadership in fact do hate Bush. When the chairman of the DNC blurts out that he "hates Republicans" and Dems in congress accuse Bush of lying to start a war and actually liken him to Adolf Hitler, I think it's safe to say that intense hatred really exists. Top level Democratic leaders in congress are working ceaselessly to undermine support for our national war effort. Why would that be? What good can come to us through losing this war? If the Democrat party and their toadies in the press have their way, we will certainly lose this war. Recovering political power and the defeat of Bush on all fronts seems to be the only motivation. If this isn't enough evidence hop on over to DU and check a few threads (if you can stand the profanity).

The "oldy, but goody" tactic here is the denigration of my point by labeling it as propaganda. Terrorists play our media like a violin and achieve successes that would otherwise be denied them. This is obvious and is on display prominently today in the Lebonese conflict.

[lily]

Rider
When the chairman of the DNC blurts out that he "hates Republicans" and Dems in congress accuse Bush of lying to start a war and actually liken him to Adolf Hitler, I think it's safe to say that intense hatred really exists.
Well, see.....that's your first mistake. The trueÂ*Â*Democats showed what they thought of Screaming Dean, the first time he lost it. We didn't vote for him. He lost. The man is good for one thing, and one thing only.......something for the Republicans to bitch about. No serious Democrat pays any attention to him.

If this isn't enough evidence hop on over to DU and check a few threads (if you can stand the profanity).

.....and there is your second mistake, Rider. I'm totally serious when I tell you, the first time I was told by a Republican to go to DU........I had to ask what it was. Republicans think that all Democrats are crazy.

On a total side note.........I hate posting where opposite opinions can't be made.

Top level Democratic leaders in congress are working ceaselessly to undermine support for our national war effort. Why would that be? What good can come to us through losing this war? If the Democrat party and their toadies in the press have their way, we will certainly lose this war.
You are confusing perfect legitimate criticism of the way this war is handled, with undermining the war effort. Bush himself has admitted mistakes were made. Let me ask you two questions:
1. Why do we have to re-deploy thousands of soldiers to patrol a city (along with the Green Zone, no less), after 3+years of war? That city should be thriving by now.

2. Why, if all Iraqi citizens are perfectly happy and it's only a handful of terrorists, that don't want democracy, were there thousands protesting (a right they have) for Hizbollah? If you think things are bad in Iraq now...just think what will happen if Hizbollah decides to join in.

Recovering political power and the defeat of Bush on all fronts seems to be the only motivation.
You're darned right we want the power back. We've seen enough what the Republicans have done to this country......what stronger motivation could there be?


Oh and not to be a smart ass.........but it's Democratic party. Not Democrat Party.;)

[Rider]

"Well, see.....that's your first mistake. The trueÂ*Â*Democats showed what they thought of Screaming Dean, the first time he lost it. We didn't vote for him. He lost. The man is good for one thing, and one thing only.......something for the Republicans to bitch about. No serious Democrat pays any attention to him."

I guess it was the "less than serious" Democrats that put him in charge of the Democratic Party, eh?

".....and there is your second mistake, Rider. I'm totally serious when I tell you, the first time I was told by a Republican to go to DU........I had to ask what it was. Republicans think that all Democrats are crazy.

On a total side note.........I hate posting where opposite opinions can't be made. "

Fair enough, Lily. I not only don't think that all Dems are crazy, I think that the majority are caring, concerned citizens trying to make things better. I suspect that you are in that group.

"You are confusing perfect legitimate criticism of the way this war is handled, with undermining the war effort."

Calling the President a liar and comparing him to a dictator is hardly legitimate criticism. Statements made by Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi and others are simply attempts to fan the flames of dissent. Can you give me an example of any constructive criticism?

"1. Why do we have to re-deploy thousands of soldiers to patrol a city (along with the Green Zone, no less), after 3+years of war? That city should be thriving by now.

2. Why, if all Iraqi citizens are perfectly happy and it's only a handful of terrorists, that don't want democracy, were there thousands protesting (a right they have) for Hizbollah? If you think things are bad in Iraq now...just think what will happen if Hizbollah decides to join in."

The problems we are dealing with now are the result of "limited warfare" which has never been successful that I know of. Check out Korea and Vietnam. The reason that WWII was so successful was that we waged war on the populations of the enemy. As horrible as it is, the will of the people must be broken to achieve any real victory. The people of Iraq are not "perfectly happy" (as if anyone has ever suggested that). They never will be. The people of Japan and Germany were not "perfectly happy" either. Their spirits had been crushed and they all fervently desired peace. Because we are now "sensitive" and will not attack the population, we will never have complete victory. I'm sure that by now you are convinced that I am a bloodthirsty war monger, but nothing could be further from the truth. I think that we should have withdrawn from the middle east along with the Russians after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The population of the middle east is largely made up of ignorant, backward, tribalistic primitives. As long as their oil was put on the free market for sale to the highest bidder who cares what violence they commit to each other?

[lily]

Rider

Calling the President a liar and comparing him to a dictator is
hardly legitimate criticism. Statements made by Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi and
others are simply attempts to fan the flames of dissent. Can you give me an
example of any constructive criticism?

No, it is legitimate criticism, it might be rude, but it's legitimate.

As for an example of constructive criticism.......just off the top of my
head, Hillary's questioning of RUmsfailed and Warner's suggestion that if
this war does indeed turn into a civil war, the president has to go in front
of congress to take it any further. We didn't sign up for that.



The problems we are dealing with now are the result of "limited
warfare" which has never been successful that I know of. Check out Korea and
Vietnam.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you trying to tell me that Bush didn't
know what he was doing when he got us in this mess, or that Rumsfailed
didn't? I thought there was some sort of "war plan"......seems to me that
would have been a good idea. One would think they would have gotten the
clue, when flowers weren't thrown at our feet. Seriously and I'm asking this
question, without any venom.........can you tell me how a bunch of
insurgents, with rag tag weapons and armour can put the best fighting forces
in the world behind the eight ball? It's not the soldiers fault........it's
the men running the show's fault!

The reason that WWII was so successful was that we waged war on the
populations of the enemy. As horrible as it is, the will of the people must
be broken to achieve any real victory. The people of Iraq are not "perfectly
happy" (as if anyone has ever suggested that). They never will be. The
people of Japan and Germany were not "perfectly happy" either. Their spirits
had been crushed and they all fervently desired peace. Because we are now
"sensitive" and will not attack the population, we will never have complete
victory. I'm sure that by now you are convinced that I am a bloodthirsty war
monger, but nothing could be further from the truth. I think that we should
have withdrawn from the middle east along with the Russians after the
collapse of the Soviet Union.

So, then what you are telling me is all those purple fingers everyone was so
proud of, was just for show? We have to beat democracy into them, whether
they like it or not?



The population of the middle east is largely made up of ignorant, backward,
tribalistic primitives.

I daresay, you should do a search and check on the Middle East's contributions to the world, before calling them ignorant. Science and math comes firt to mind.Â*Â*You don't even have to do that. Look at the cities they built, for us to destroy.

As long as their oil was put on the free market for
sale to the highest bidder who cares what violence they commit to each
other?

This is what confuses me the most........was this war just about oil, or not?

[Rider]

Lily- Calling the President a liar when there's no evidence to support that is not legitimate criticism. It's inflamatory rhetoric the like I've never seen before. And suggesting that the President go before congress is not criticism, constructive or otherwise.

I have never agreed with all of the President's plans for the Iraq war, but then I'm not privy to the information that he has. There's no way that he could have forseen events that have taken place. Most of the criticism offered is nothing but carping from people that are and have been opposed to the war. Of course he is responsible for the failings, but he is not the cause. It is obvious that the insurgents feed off the media reports of doom, gloom, failure and foreboding. The American people are also affected by a steady stream of pessimism night after night. We have accomplished much in Iraq, but I fear that the left has worked its magic; destroying the will of the people to continue the fight.

"So, then what you are telling me is all those purple fingers everyone was so
proud of, was just for show? We have to beat democracy into them, whether
they like it or not?"

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.

Yes, we all know about the Muslim world of the past, but what have they done in the past few centuries? Can you name a few great books or advances in science since the 10th century? No society can rest on its laurels that long.

The war was about oil and fighting the terrorist forces aligned against us and the rest of the western world. Does it bother you that the Mullahs of Iran want to control the flow of oit to the rest of the world? It had better bother us all.

[lily]

Rider

Lily- Calling the President a liar when there's no evidence to support that is not legitimate criticism. It's inflamatory rhetoric the like I've never seen before.
Ok, just to keep it short and not waste bandwith, I'll just go whats in the top of my head and I'll just keep the lies down to what got us into this mess......ok?
WMD
Mushroom clouds
We will be greeted as liberatiors
Flowers will be thrown at our feet
This war should last no longer than 6 months
This war will cost us next to nothing
The Iraqi oil will pay for the war
Inferances, that he never debunked that Iraq had something to do with 911
Democracy in Iraq will stabalize the entire Middle East



I have never agreed with all of the President's plans for the Iraq war, but then I'm not privy to the information that he has. There's no way that he could have forseen events that have taken place.

...........but you see that's his JOB! He was warned. Generals were fired, that told him he needed more troops in the begining. Stop and ask yourself, why his father didn't go in there......HE KNEW BETTER AND HE LISTENED TO HIS ADVISORS.
Â*Â*It is obvious that the insurgents feed off the media reports of doom, gloom, failure and foreboding. The American people are also affected by a steady stream of pessimism night after night. We have accomplished much in Iraq, but I fear that the left has worked its magic; destroying the will of the people to continue the fight.

....so now it's the media's fault? Would you prefer a state run newspaper?

"So, then what you are telling me is all those purple fingers everyone was so
proud of, was just for show? We have to beat democracy into them, whether
they like it or not?"

I'm not sure that I understand your comment.
You'll have to read the words you wrote.

Yes, we all know about the Muslim world of the past, but what have they done in the past few centuries? Can you name a few great books or advances in science since the 10th century? No society can rest on its laurels that long.

I'm not sure if you're aware of all the doctors, scientists and researchers that have eitherÂ*Â*studied here in our universities or are now living here.

The war was about oil and fighting the terrorist forces aligned against us and the rest of the western world.

You're the first Republican that I've read that has admitted it was about oil........as for terrorist forces aligned against us........Iraq never did anything to us.
Does it bother you that the Mullahs of Iran want to control the flow of oit to the rest of the world? It had better bother us all.

Iran is just one country.........our best "buds", the Saudis......who I might also mention that 13 of the 19 hyjackers were from Saudi Arabia, is where most of our oil comes from.

Sorry about making this post so long......but I'm on a roll now.......Bush had one good plan, since he was in office. One that would have set us on the road of being independent of foreign oil, put people to work, not left abandoned buildings and a ruined economy for some states and that plan was in his energy plan. To turn all closed bases into oil refineries. We have the oil......we need the refineries. Yet, he passed that bill, without it.......and saved his one and only veto for stem cell research.

::end rant::

[Old Corps Gunny]

Lily asks if we are aware of all the doctors, scientists or researchers that have either studied in our universities or reside here? Assuming she is referring to those of Middle Eastern extraction, exactly! OUR universities. Of those residing here, one might ask why here and not in their home countries. Could it be they prefer living in a country not dominated by religious repression?

Of course this was about oil, if anyone doesn't know that then they are incredibly naive. Saddam was a major threat to the stability of that region, he demonstrated that with the invasion of Kuwait and the massing of his army on the border of Saudi Arabia. Whether anyone likes it or not, our whole economy is dependent on oil and any threat to its importation is a threat to the security of this country; that's why I have supported alternative energy technology since the 1970s, we absolutely have to reduce our dependence on Middle East goodwill.

However, we are embroiled in Iraq now; a commitment has been made to see that a representative government is in place in that country and to provide security until Iraq is able to do itself. If we cut and run, then we demonstrate to the world again that the United States, while able to fight a war from a distance (air power and artillery), we don't have the guts or staying power for close range fighting where the technological advantage diminishes. It also demonstrates to our allies that we cannot be relied on to keep our word -- that our commitment changes with changes in the administration and/or the stridency of the media, not to mention the "loyal opposition". In turn, how can any nation also expect us to abide by treaties if a sitting administration decides it doesn't like them?

[Rider]

Whoa up here, Lily-
WMD certainly exist. Virtually every intelligence agency in the western world agreed on that issue. If they don't exist (which I don't believe for a minute), it would be a mistake, not a lie.
A lot of your examples don't ring a bell with me as coming from the President himself, but once again, being wrong doesn't make you a liar. But most of all, not refuting something someone else has said hardly makes you guilty of a lie. And you know, democracy would and maybe will stabilize the middle east. Shall we let it all play out before calling him a liar?

Of course the plan was his and he does not shy away from responsibility. No, his father didn't go to Baghdad, but he was trying to work within the framework set up by UN resolutions. The whole issue was the invasion of Kuwait. Different problem, different plan.

No I don't want a state run press; that's absurd and you really do know that. I would like to see balanced coverage. I would also like to see a press in this country that actually supports our national interests and not those of our enemies. This is a war; a real shooting war and not some esoteric academic problem in journalism 101. The press managed to support our war effort in WWII and Korea. That all ended with Vietnam. They now have this perverted idea that their job is to combat our government whenever and wherever possible, consequences be damned.

The purpose of "no holds barred" warfare is not to "beat democracy into them", but to force them to accept defeat. Can you grasp that concept? We did not stop the total destruction of Germany and Japan until they agreed to unconditional surrender. We quickly defeated the Iraqi military, but not the people. That's one reason for the insurgency.

Of course their scholars and scientists study here. I think that's confirmation of my point, right?

FYI, I don't consider myself a Republican. I usually vote that way as the Democrats scare the hell out of me. The President himself has said on numerous accaisions that the flow of oil to the rest of the world must be maintained and protected. As for Iraq; they most certainly have aligned themselves with our enemies. The insidious thing about middle eastern terrorism is that the terrorist groups function as a de facto armed force for the sponsor countries. They allow those sponsors to strike us and our allies while maintaining a facade of innocence. Iraq financed, harbored and trained these groups. It's a matter of record.

About the Saudis: We must choose our actions carefully as I'm sure you'd agree. We have no illusions about them. The ruling family supports the west and does everything that it can to stabilize oil prices. Iran on the other hand is doing everything in its power to destabilize the region and damage us. They are the kingpin of the terrorist sponsors. They have to go.

[lily]

Old Corps Gunny


Lily asks if we are aware of all the doctors, scientists or researchers that have either studied in our universities or reside here? Assuming she is referring to those of Middle Eastern extraction, exactly! OUR universities. Of those residing here, one might ask why here and not in their home countries. Could it be they prefer living in a country not dominated by religious repression?

I highlited the part you seemed to have missed.

[lily]

Rider


Whoa up here, Lily-
WMD certainly exist. Virtually every intelligence agency in the western world agreed on that issue. If they don't exist (which I don't believe for a minute), it would be a mistake, not a lie.

I see you're covering your bases here. WMD certainly do exist, if they don't exist, it would be a mistake..........either way, Rider.......where are they? Even Bush admitted there were none. Mistake you say......ok, I'll buy that.......but it's a damned costly mistake. Hell, if I were you, I'd go for lie. It doesn't make him look so incompetent.
A lot of your examples don't ring a bell with me as coming from the President himself, but once again, being wrong doesn't make you a liar. But most of all, not refuting something someone else has said hardly makes you guilty of a lie. And you know, democracy would and maybe will stabilize the middle east. Shall we let it all play out before calling him a liar?
The president, his administration..........you want links, let me know.

Of course the plan was his and he does not shy away from responsibility. No, his father didn't go to Baghdad, but he was trying to work within the framework set up by UN resolutions. The whole issue was the invasion of Kuwait. Different problem, different plan.
Odd........this Bush didn't have the UN's say so to go in and it didn't stop him.

No I don't want a state run press; that's absurd and you really do know that. I would like to see balanced coverage. I would also like to see a press in this country that actually supports our national interests and not those of our enemies. This is a war; a real shooting war and not some esoteric academic problem in journalism 101. The press managed to support our war effort in WWII and Korea. That all ended with Vietnam.
.
You say you don't want a state run press, yet the rest of response says the opposite. I realize that everyone would just love to see children playing and running along the streets. The fact is, that in most of the country they can't. I'm sure somewhere in Iraq there is a road being built, hospitals erected, schools opened, but sorry that's not news.....well the hospitals and schools are, since we've found out the over pricing from Halliburton.

I'll also agree with you that the press handled WW2 and the Korean war different, but it was a different time and technology. The citizens weren't even allowed to know that FDR couldn't walk. I don't know....I think I'll take an informed society over a un-informend one any day.

They now have this perverted idea that their job is to combat our government whenever and wherever possible, consequences be damned.

Their job is to inform those that wish to be informed. I don't know where this paranoid idea comes from, that every thing and every one that doesn't agree with what this administration says and does is doing harm to Bush or this country..........where is Mc Carthy when you need him?!?!

The purpose of "no holds barred" warfare is not to "beat democracy into them", but to force them to accept defeat. Can you grasp that concept? We did not stop the total destruction of Germany and Japan until they agreed to unconditional surrender. We quickly defeated the Iraqi military, but not the people. That's one reason for the insurgency.

No sorry.....I can't grasp the concept that people have to have democracy or any thing else forced on them.Â*Â*

[Rider]

Lily-
The wmd exist or they don't. A costly mistake? A bold move? Depends on how you feel about the whole concept of the war. You are so fixated on nailing big bad Bush that you can't see the forest for the trees. OK, if it was such a huge mistake, maybe you'd like to give us your plan? I am so sick of this endless carping with no alternatives. All you can seem to do is complain. My God you must hate Bush.Â*Â*Really, what would you have done? Dispatched a couple hundred thousand men into Pakistan to find Osama? Maybe start a nuclear war with the Pakis? Let's say we catch Osama today with every one of his top staff. Do you think that would end the terrorist attacks on the US and Europe? We'd just make him a martyr and the Muslim world would be aflame. Or maybe you could try the Gore approach; call 911 and report the terrorists to the police forces of the world. Whatever!

So no more whining- give us a plan. Anyone can play armchair general; give it your best shot. Pretend it's 9/12. You've got a clean slate. Lay it all out for us. We'll pick it apart for you. Oh and while you try your best to win the war we'll get the press wound up and sic them on you. We'll demoralize the public and convince them that you messed up everything. Never mind that war is ALWAYS a mess. Nope, we'll have them shred your every effort. Good Luck.

We're waiting.

[Rider]

Lily,
We're still waiting to hear from you, Madam President. The press is getting antsy and it's been almost 24 hours since the attack on the towers. Will you take action or not? Our source at the NYT needs to hear something soon as he has to know whether to print the "Crisis in the White House-Indecision or Panic?" article or the "The Cowgirl President Goes Off Half Cocked" piece. Oh, and I've seen the Reuters pictures of your first post 9/11 staff meeting; you know the one where Rumsfailed is picking his nose and the behind the podium shot where it shows the hem of your dress caught in the waistband of your pantyhose! Amazing that they got those! Then there's the question of how you intend to deal with the tragic death of the single mother, killed in that car crash returning to her Army Reserve unit at the local military base. Does being a murderer keep you awake at night? We interviewed 1,750 combat soldiers and found 3 who wanted to discuss how screwed up your plan for the war is; and will air the discussion as soon as you release the details

Your nation awaits, President Lily...

[lily]

Rider........I do not respond well to insults. If you see my posting as complaining, instead of debating, then don't respond. If you want to have a discussion, I'm fine with that, also.

You want my plan for 9/12? This is going to be a big surprise to you....my plan would have been exactly what Bush did. Give Afghanistan a certain amount of time to hand over bin Laden, when they didn't, invade Afghanistan to find him. One thing I would have changed, that he didn't do........invade Saudi Arabia......not Iraq for cripes sakes!

[Rider]

Lily- I'm sorry if you were insulted. I appologize, really. I guess that I was venting over the collective complaints and carping of a thousand writers, pundits and posters. But I hope that you got the drift of my posts. The absurd moment to moment, instantaneous, judgemental coverage by the media and commentary by politicians, bloggers etc..
One thing that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have pounded home over and over is that this is going to be a long war; perhaps decades. They very well may be right.

I submit to you that invading Saudi Arabia would be a grave mistake. The population is extremely radical and sectarian unlike Iraq. Also, the Saudis are the force that stabilizes oil prices for the western world by increasing production when necessary. Invading Saudi Arabian would necessitate continuing into Iran and Iraq.

[lily]

Rider


Lily- I'm sorry if you were insulted. I appologize, really. I guess that I was venting over the collective complaints and carping of a thousand writers, pundits and posters. But I hope that you got the drift of my posts. The absurd moment to moment, instantaneous, judgemental coverage by the media and commentary by politicians, bloggers etc..

Maybe we both over reacted?;)
One thing that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have pounded home over and over is that this is going to be a long war; perhaps decades. They very well may be right.

Rumsfeld, 2/7/03: "It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Â*Â*Cheney, 3/16/03: "I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks
rather than months"

Â*Â*Q: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators,
but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad,
do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody
battle with significant American casualties?

Â*Â*Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I
really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press,
3/16/03]



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice
President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end
before the Bush administration leaves office.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/vstory.bush.banner.afp.jpg

I submit to you that invading Saudi Arabia would be a grave mistake. The population is extremely radical and sectarian unlike Iraq. Also, the Saudis are the force that stabilizes oil prices for the western world by increasing production when necessary. Invading Saudi Arabian would necessitate continuing into Iran and Iraq.
Well, I assume in your first post, you made a mistake when you said we should have invaded Pakistan? But let me ask you, as you asked me.....we invaded Afghanistan, because the Taliban wouldn't hand over bin Laden. What does Iraq have to do with anything? None of the hyjackers came from there.Â*Â*We invaded Iraq, before we were even finished with Afghanistan.


Anyway.....you asked me what I would do. I would have done what Bush did, invade Afghanistan.........but I would have finished the job. We had the whole world's backing for that war. You yourself said we should finish what we started.

[Rider]

Lily,
I acknowledge the quotes that you put out there and Rumsfeld was wrong about the length of the Iraq campaign, but when refering to the war and not just this campaign, they are adamant about it being a long struggle.
I never suggested that we invade Pakistan. We could not do it without initiating a nuclear war. I was being sarcastic.
I don't know how familiar you are with the history of WWII, but the first substantial action we took against Germany was to invade North Africa. Now, North Africa had done nothing to us, but our action was necessary to achieve our overall victory.As a matter of fact, we fought our way across at least three countries there, no doubt destroying their infrastructure and killing thousands of their people. The terrorist groups act as a defacto armed forces for Syria, Iran and formerly Iraq and Libya. These countries provide them with intelligence support, money, facilities, training and munitions. We have concrete proof that Iraq had done all of this. Is there any doubt that Iran and Syria are using Hezbollah to do their work in Lebanon? For instance, if the US provided funds, training and munitions to El Salvador to invade Mexico, do you think that Mexico would be wrong to retaliate against the US?
In my opinion, we attacked Iraq because:
1. We could do it relatively easily.
2. The people were relatively secular and for the most part hated Sadam.
3. It would strike a blow to the terrorist states and make them fear us (remember Libya?).
4. It would provide us with centralized bases with whict to strike Iran and Syria.
The battle in Iraq is a campaign in a much larger war. If we stop now our enemies will win and more of us in the west will die. This is how they operate. They use our press to convince our citizens that the fighting should stop and that the war is a quagmire, etc.. They then regroup, rearm and carry on with their battle plan when it suits them. Who recently took over Somalia?

[lily]

Rider


Lily,
I acknowledge the quotes that you put out there and Rumsfeld was wrong about the length of the Iraq campaign, but when refering to the war and not just this campaign, they are adamant about it being a long struggle.
No......your exact words were and I quote:

One thing that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have pounded home over and over is that this is going to be a long war; perhaps decades. They very well may be right.


In my opinion, we attacked Iraq because:
1. We could do it relatively easily.
2. The people were relatively secular and for the most part hated Sadam.
3. It would strike a blow to the terrorist states and make them fear us (remember Libya?).
4. It would provide us with centralized bases with whict to strike Iran and Syria.

Yeah........and how is that working out?

[Rider]

Jeez Lily- Why is it so important to you to that mistakes have been made in this war? I feel like we're debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. MyÂ*Â*point is that Bush wants to keep Rumsfeld where he is even though Rumsfeld offered to step down. It's Bush's call to make. He's running the war. He's the man, like it or not.

It seems to me that the war has taken a setback because Iran has decided to play its hand with Hezbollah and the Madhi militia. Maybe it was a mistake to try to install a democracy; time will tell.

But, all of this criticism you have has to be put in proper perspective; that is, it's coming from someone with so little knowledge of the middle east and obviousy so little knowledge of the history of warfare that youÂ*Â*actually believe that we should have invaded our largest, strongest and best ally among the oil producing countries- Saudi Arabia.

Don't mean to be rude, Lily, but that's how all this comes across to me.

[lily]

Rider

Jeez Lily- Why is it so important to you to that mistakes have been made in this war?

Maybe because the name of the thread is Bush's mistakes?



It seems to me that the war has taken a setback because Iran has decided to play its hand with Hezbollah and the Madhi militia. Maybe it was a mistake to try to install a democracy; time will tell.

But, all of this criticism you have has to be put in proper perspective; that is, it's coming from someone with so little knowledge of the middle east and obviousy so little knowledge of the history of warfare that youÂ*Â*actually believe that we should have invaded our largest, strongest and best ally among the oil producing countries- Saudi Arabia.

Don't mean to be rude, Lily, but that's how all this comes across to me.

I don't mean to be rude either Rider.....but if you think that the set backs in Iraq is because Iran decided to play it's hand with Hizbolloh, then I don't think it's me that doesn't have knowledge of the Middle East.

....as for invading Saudi Arabia......Iraq had nothing to do with 911. 13 hyjackers came from Saudi Arabi. All I want to know is if we were serious about getting to the root of 911, why not get to the root of it?

[Cobra]

Because we're not serious about getting to the root of it and invading Saudi Arabia would just make things a whole lot worse for us on the terroist front. Big time muslim holy spot if I recall and filled with radicals ruled by a friendly king we don't wont deposed.

[Rider]

Lily wrote- I don't mean to be rude either Rider.....but if you think that the set backs in Iraq is because Iran decided to play it's hand with Hizbolloh, then I don't think it's me that doesn't have knowledge of the Middle East.
Do you not believe that Hizbollah is under the thumb of Iran? The militia known as the Madhi Army is a Shiite force heavily influenced by the Iranians. You don't have to take my word for it, it's the prevailing analysis.

Lily wrote- ....as for invading Saudi Arabia......Iraq had nothing to do with 911. 13 hyjackers came from Saudi Arabi. All I want to know is if we were serious about getting to the root of 911, why not get to the root of it?
Lily, the Saudi ruling family are very pro western and would like to bring their country into the 21st century. They are blocked by the religious leaders who would like to take their country back to the 6th century. The populace could revolt and overthrow their rulers, destabilizing the region critically.

Also, the government of Pakistan was key to the capture of those involved in the recent plot uncovered in England to bomb several air liners. Yet the Pakis are hiding OBL. It's the same situation.

Why do you assume that the root of the problem is in SA? Don't you think that your reasoning is a little simplistic? There is absolutely no evidence that the government of SA had anything at all to do with that plot. If you will remember, OBL is a minor member of the Saudi ruling family (there are thousands of them). Yet, the government there has cracked down on Al Qaida.

It was a strategic decision to start the war in Iraq. It's not like Iraq was some innocent little bystander in the terror war on the west. Iraq provided intelligence services (the head of Iraqi intel met personally with OBL in Sudan), financial support, training facilities and munitions. That, coupled with the indisputable fact that Hussein was a brutal butcher who had used WMD on his own people, etc.,etc.. You get the picture, no?

[lily]

Rider


Do you not believe that Hizbollah is under the thumb of Iran? The militia known as the Madhi Army is a Shiite force heavily influenced by the Iranians. You don't have to take my word for it, it's the prevailing analysis.

I'm not the one that is claiming that Iran, Hizbolloh and the Madhi Army is the cause of cause of the quagmire in Iraq. You are. Do you want me to actually believe that what is now happening is the cause of the failure?

Lily, the Saudi ruling family are very pro western and would like to bring their country into the 21st century. They are blocked by the religious leaders who would like to take their country back to the 6th century. The populace could revolt and overthrow their rulers, destabilizing the region critically.
......yes they are so pro-western, that their women are as surpressed as the women in Afghanistan. I only bring this up, because that was the reason that was given to us, after bombing the hell out of them and still not finding bin laden. Oh look at those terible burqas. Look how the women can't do anything. It's the old bait and switch, that this administration is known for.

If they are such allies, why aren't they fighting side by side with us to get rid of terrorism?

Also, the government of Pakistan was key to the capture of those involved in the recent plot uncovered in England to bomb several air liners. Yet the Pakis are hiding OBL. It's the same situation.

We can't find bin Laden. If you have some proof Pakistan is hiding him......

Why do you assume that the root of the problem is in SA? Don't you think that your reasoning is a little simplistic? There is absolutely no evidence that the government of SA had anything at all to do with that plot.

What I have said is that 13 of the 19 hyjackers were Saudis.......yet we invaded Iraq........how many Iraqi's were hyjackers? How many times has Iraq bombed the US? We went into Iraq, because after years of war with them, we thought it would be a piece of cake. It might have been....except for the totally inept way it was run.

[Rider]

Lily-I'm not the one that is claiming that Iran, Hizbolloh and the Madhi Army is the cause of cause of the quagmire in Iraq. You are. Do you want me to actually believe that what is now happening is the cause of the failure?
Yes. If the sectarian violence, stoked by Shiite militias backed by Iran ended, the situation in Iraq would improve dramatically.

Lily-...If they are such allies, why aren't they fighting side by side with us to get rid of terrorism?
They have been.

Lily- We can't find bin Laden. If you have some proof Pakistan is hiding him......
Re-read the point I made. Your answer makes no sense.

Lily-What I have said is that 13 of the 19 hyjackers were Saudis.......yet we invaded Iraq........how many Iraqi's were hyjackers? How many times has Iraq bombed the US? We went into Iraq, because after years of war with them, we thought it would be a piece of cake. It might have been....except for the totally inept way it was run.
This war is about Islamic facism and its war against us and the rest of the world. Afghanistan was the first step. Iraq is the second. There will have to be many more campaigns. I'ts not about 9/11 in and of itself.That was just the last and most destructive in a long series of attacks against us.

[lily]

Rider


Yes. If the sectarian violence, stoked by Shiite militias backed by Iran ended, the situation in Iraq would improve dramatically.

Cool! That's all it will take? We have no worries about the Sunni, Kurds or Baathists?


They have been.

They've been fighting side by side with us? Odd, they're not listed in the coalition of theÂ*Â*willing, nor do I see their soldiers being killed.



This war is about Islamic facism and its war against us and the rest of the world. Afghanistan was the first step. Iraq is the second. There will have to be many more campaigns. I'ts not about 9/11 in and of itself.That was just the last and most destructive in a long series of attacks against us.

You have danced around the fact that 13 of the hyjackers came from Saudi Arabia..........now you're telling me that it's not about 911.

We are now on page 6. I think it's time to stop beating a dead horse.