Git your facts straight!

[Wally Dog]

>Get the facts straight!
>
>The United States didn't start the War on Terror. It was started by
>terrorists on 9/11.
>For those of you who have forgotten the facts, or never knew them,
read
>this:
>FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did.
From
>1941-1945,
>450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
>Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never
>attacked us. From
>1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.
>John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never
>attacked us.
>Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From
>1965-1973, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
>Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia
never
>attacked us.
>Bill Clinton was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three
times by
>Sudan, and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
>In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has
liberated
>two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaeda, put nuclear
>inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and
>captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
>We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this
abroad
>while not allowing another terrorist attack at home Worst president in
>history? Think again!
>_________________________________

 

[Ten Bears]

Good post WALLY

 

[BuzzH]

"git" yourself a dictionary...

Oh, heres a little tidbit, Bush hasnt liberated anything yet.

Do you really think he has???? If its liberated why are we still there???

Ever heard of the Geneva and Hauge conventions...apparently Bush Jr. hasnt. If he has the American taxpayers should be really upset. He should have asked his Dad for some help on that.

Seems both Clinton and Bush Sr. were much smarter in their approach of waging war.

Dubya should have learned from Vietnam that not having international support is a disaster. He should have further learned that acting within the UN, like his Dad did, was a smart idea and we had the entire world behind us. That war was over...and in a hurry.

Heres a quote from around 1992 that Dubya should have read guess who said it?:

"Had the United States and the United Kingdom gone on alone to capture Bagdad...we would have been considered occupying forces...therefore we would have been responsible for ALL the costs of maintaining or restoring government, education, and other services for the people of Iraq. We would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit, we would still be there, and we, not the United Nations, would be bearing the costs of that occupation. This is a burden I am sure the beleagured American tax payer would not have been happy to take on."

Take a guess what the beleagured American taxpayer is now responsible for....

What a dumbass.

[ 02-17-2004, 11:14: Message edited by: BuzzH ]

 

[Ten Bears]

I think BUZZ just tried to tell a joke.

BUZZ, why don't you give the same advise to BS?

 

[Wally Dog]

Ten,
I thought the same thing.
Do you know how far Laramie is from Missoula?
WD

 

[Erik in AK]

Hey Wally,
You forgot Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti and Kosovo (which is often lumped in with Bosnia but was a separate Op). None of these were major wars for us but U.S. soldiers died in each one for at best, dubious political or military purpose...but hey, thats what democrat presidents are for.

Forgive me for quibbling but...Osama was offered up to WJC only twice(that should have been enough).

 

[dgibson]

That war was over...and in a hurry.

Was it?

 

[Erik in AK]

Hey Buzz?
When was the last time the UN did anything where the U.S. didn't bear the greatest burden? When you mention Geneva, are you referring to Guantanamo Bay and the "brutal" treatment thats being imposed on the car-bombers held there? Horrors such as clean beds and clothes, baths, Hal'al meals, competent medical care, unrestricted daily prayer. Before you start talking about civil liberties and freedom please allow me to remind you that these guys sure as hell didn't have any before they were arrested. Liberty and inherant rights are American concepts and are entirely foreign to the vast majority of middle-easterners, Muslim or otherwise.

I am no legal expert so I'm willing to accept that the detention in Cuba may be technically illegal but as an American who was attacked, I really don't care about those people's "constitutional rights" because they are not Americans. I for one, am willing to forgive this administration for its overstepping, to whatever extent necessary, until this gets fixed. If anything, this is an example of bad policy come home to roost combined with trying not to repeat past mistakes. You see, we're far too hung up on technology and therefore have substandard human intelligence assets. Do you remember Mohammad Atta? We got him by accident and were pretty sure he was significant but let him go due to technicalities (and our bad habit of extending full constitutional protection to foreigners). His wanted status was confirmed after he got away. We don't yet know all we need to about these guys; who they know, what they know so they remain in enclosed comfort until further notice.

I'm tired of all the rhetoric about the need for "concensus building". Screw the U.N. "Consensus building" is what you hear when the parties involved are unwilling to take responsibility for the decision that everyone knows needs to be made.

They will always hate us no matter what we do. If we engage and attempt to help we are meddling and flaunting our power and wealth. If we stay out we are turning our backs on the Muslim world.

These people have been at war since the dawn of time and they brought this war to our shores. There are no uniforms or weapons plants or bases to take the fight to. The only strategic targets we have to hit are individuals so we must remain commited to killing their combatant leadership until they cease.

[ 02-17-2004, 13:50: Message edited by: Erik in AK ]

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

How many U. N. resolutions did Saddam break? Did the U. N. ever enforce it or did it give Saddam more reason to thumb his nose at the U. N. and the rest of the world?

Dgibson,

I just notice the message below your post. I like it!

 

[BuzzH]

BHR, plenty of resolutions were broken. Thats when its even more critical to get the backing of the U.N. before you act alone. How do you point the finger at Saddam for breaking resolutions then turn around and break them yourself???

I think GW handled Afghanistan properly...but he's handled the second Iraq war like shit from the start. Now we're in one hell of an expensive mess there, both in terms of life and money. I also dont trust anyone that wont take the responsibility for their actions. GW is passing the buck as quickly as he can. The guy is blaming the CIA, the sources of intelligence, and basically anyone but the guy who ultimately made the decision. I hadnt totally given up hope for Bush until he started the blame game...I always thought the captain was supposed to go down with the ship. If you trust your intelligence and YOUR CIA enough to go to war, then by God, stand by them and dont ditch them when the shit hits the fan. Bush has bailed big time, and I'll never trust a "leader" like that, at least take responsiblity. Now that no WMD's have been found, and an election is on the line, a head will roll to appease the peasants, and just like that everything is all better. What a mess, and once again, our tax dollars are sent to the rescue.

Erik, I agree with you on most of your post, I wasnt referring to anything under the Geneva or Hauge conventions except as it applies to our responsibilities once we occupy a country (Iraq)...rebuilding everything. You're also right, typically we do bear most of the burden anyway, but at least we salvage some foreign relations when we have international support.

 

[dgibson]

You're right in that he isn't standing his ground. Right or wrong, he should stand by his decisions instead of pandering to his critics.

 

[BHR]

Buzz,

How many resolutions need to be broke and not inforced before you realize that the U. N. is a phucking joke?

We had international support excluding France, Germany, and Russia. Hard to get their support when a regime change was going to cost them money, and expose what they were doing in Iraq.

Saddam had to go and now he's gone. I'd rather stir up the hornet nest half way across the world then let it come here and have to do it. History will tell who made the right call.

 

[Michaelr]

Buzzard says

Now that no WMD's have been found,

You do know that madman insane has in fact used wmd's?? against both his neighbors and his own people.

we then know that he did in fact have them.

So I ask, where did they go??

Do you think He used them all up? Or that the weapons inspectors found all of them?, or that they were all destroyed during the first gulf war?

I think they are in syria, and/or burried in the sand. They had ample time to accomplish either or both while we were pussyfooting around with the United Nations.

I find your argument of no wmd's pathetic at best

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

You are correct, and my guess is, history will repeat itself...again.

By the way, that isnt a good thing.

 

[Erik in AK]

I agree that Iraq will be expensive but success is still possible. Not just a classic military victory but a case of the largess of the United States carrying the day. We have a real opportunity for our political, economic and military might to bring about self-sustaining stability and prosperity to Iraq and in so doing set a shining example for the rest of the Arab world that the U.S. is not the Great Satan we've allowed ourselves to be labeled as. I have friends, Bro's, over there right now and more going soon. I get a lot of inside skinny that never makes the news because its (1) dull (2) an example of our success. Iraq now has more and more reliable electricity, clean water, sewage treatment and trash collection than before the first bombs fell. More hospitals, schools and mosques are open now than before. The list of infrastructure improvements grows by the day but only the guys with TNT in their shorts make the "Film at eleven". We absolutely HAVE to finish the job.

Please set aside your opinions on the political wisdom of this war for a moment and ask yourself this one question: Is America now more secure with Saddam gone?

If you honestly believe "No" then there nothing I or anyone else can say to convince you, but if you can say "Yes, we're more secure" even if only a little then I say the war and the rebuilding is ultimately worth it. Another question I would ask in all sincerity is "What would have happened had a Democrat(read liberal) been in office?" Whatever his other faults may be, GW is not afraid to make a decision and ride it out. I like that trait in my President...its called leadership.

Its no secret that I have no love for Bill Clinton but I will say this in defense of him or any President...no one man can possibly know it all. He has to and does rely on others to present him with solid options so he can decide what course to take. There is a lot of trust at that level...there has to be.

My problem with WJC, aside from his abherant lack of character, is that his presidency was presented with, and failed to act. Twice he was asked to issue the "go" on separate clandestine opportunties to capture and/or kill Osama, the man he had already declared to be the "number one" threat to American lives. Why is this? Because the Clinton Administration's number one priority on any given day was spin control. Not security, not foreign policy, not even the economy(stupid), it was all about spin. "How will this look politically" was far more important to him than "What's best for the country". So while Bill n' Co. fretted over what tomorrow's numbers might be the world worst bad guy got away. In Sh'Allah!!(If God wills it!!)

Good, bad or indifferent, George W. Bush is playing a hand dealt him by his predecessor's collective failures. As far as passing the buck onto the CIA over intelligence accuracy etc., I say this, again, no president can know it all and George Tenet should have been fired over 9/11. Period. If there was a political mistake I tend to think it was Bush trying to cover for the CIA in the hopes that the Intel would eventually catch up and that it would all work out in the end. A good chief executive holds his senior deputies accountable and that hasn't happened in the case of Mr. Tenet. Bush has mishandled this.

Did Bush lie about WMD? Maybe, I don't know, but my gut says no. I happen to believe that Bush went into this confident that his Intel people had their shit together enough for him to make a credible argument to the American people.

Having been to numerous briefings over the years on what we knew Iraq had, I can tell you that the U.S. military had been training and posturing to fight a ground war in Iraq in a heavily contaminated chemical environment for a long time. Its also no secret that Iraq had been trying to develop a nuke program. You may recall that in 1981 Israel sent a four-ship of F-16's loaded to the teeth across Syrian and Jordanian airspace(without clearance) to bomb Iraq's soon-to-be-operational heavy water plant that was being built with who's help? Thats right friends...France and Germany. Israel had every right to be worried about a nuclear capable Iraq.

We KNOW he HAD WMD's at some point, but like IF, HAD is a very big word in this case. Iraq's WMD's are out there somewhere and I believe they will eventually turn up. The political ramifications of "when" remain to be seen. To assert that they never existed because they have yet to be found is unfair to this president.

So I guess what I'm really asking is are you really worked up over the WMD issue or are you just trolling for more reasons to justify your personal dislike for this President.

 

[cjcj]

That was a damn good post Eric!

 

[pawclaws]

Erik for Governor!! Extremely lucid, proper amount of passion, relevant arguements with wellsupported facts. Exceptional common sense approach. You sure you posted it on the right forum?? Oh,

 

[BuzzH]

Erik,

Again, most of your post I agree with but I still have some questions that you, nor I will be able to answer.

As to if I feel more secure because of Saddams capture, not really. I believe that the first gulf war pretty well took care of that threat. I have no doubt he was a threat to his own people, but shit, if he had a bunch of his henchmen and a handfull of stones, that would be true. I dont really believe that he was any kind of threat to the U.S. here. To be honest, I dont care about the people in Iraq, I really dont. They had a great opportunity to better their situation just after the first gulf war, they didnt act.

As to the WMD's again, it wouldnt be an issue to me at all if Dubya wasnt playing the blame game. Thats just isnt showing any kind of leadership skills. If he wanted my support he'd be saying, "look, I trust my guys and I'll stand behind them." Unfortunately Dubya is a politician, and he's acting like one big-time on the WMD issue. It would seem, more likely than not, that perhaps he made out the threat to be much more than it was to get us in the war. He was saying they were on the front step of NUCLEAR weapons, for Christ sake, you cant just bury that in the sand real quick like, or haul it syria. That takes some pretty serious infrastructure to manufacture. Big difference between producing mustard gas and nuclear weapons.

Even more troubling is the fact he has not captured the very real threat...bin laden. Why spread yourself out messing with Saddam, while the real threat is still running around? Thats just poor planning and poor strategy as far as I'm concerned.

I was pretty impressed with how Bush handled the Afghanistan situation, initially, until he spread himself out with Saddam. If you're going to clean house, accomplish the highest priority situation first, before moving on. As long as bin laden is alive and running around, that is a real threat.

I just believe that we havent/wont gain enough for the massive amounts of money we'll spend there. In the end, I suspect nothing will change in Iraq. Like you yourself said, "they've been causing problems forever". That, I do agree with, and as such I see no hope in the situation there ever improving. We're throwing lives and money at a losing cause, IMO.

 

[BHR]

Good post Eric. You got Buzz pegged too. Good thing there is only a few people in this country that think like Buzz. Based on Dean's lack of support even amongst Democrat's, they are insignificant, if not loud! Looking foward to Buzz's response.

Paul

 

[BuzzH]

Paul,

Come November we'll see how people think.