I find it hilarious how Bush calls members of congress who have voted for an Iraq pull-out by 2008 "irresponsible".
The only thing "irresponsible" about Congress was buying Bush's bullshit fairy tale stories back in 2003.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Though the Americans re-voted him. [/QUOTE]
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
I should have said "too much Americans". ;)
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
I should have said "too much Americans". ;)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=#CC0066 face="Bradley Hand ITC"> The Mir@cle </font> wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Though the Americans re-voted him. [/QUOTE]
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
I should have said "too much Americans". ;)[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes. That would work. All is forgiven. :)
HALF of the Americans, not all, thankyouverymuch.[/QUOTE]
I should have said "too much Americans". ;)[/QUOTE]
Ah, yes. That would work. All is forgiven. :)
Indeed. Please no one think that ALL Americans voted for him. Just enough did to get him in. I know that when I cast by ballot, I'm damn sure I didn't select his name. (Of course, I didn't select Kerry's name, either)
Attacking Iran or Iraq...either would have been a mistake, as we've now proven, and I've described on various other threads here. But Iran may have bought us some more time before Iraq become a nuclear power. Iraq was starting from farther behind. Just look at Afghanistan, for crying out loud! One of my friend's fathers (a lifetime army officer) just got notice that he has been mobilized, and orders will be cut within the next month either to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Germany. Needless to say, she's hoping for Germany. But, the fact that we still HAVE to have troops in Afghanistan shows how we royally screwed that up. We should be well out of there by now.
As far as Congress and the President using the troops for political gain...duh! They are politicians, that's what they do. People in politics have never shied away from using the military and human lives for political gain. That has been going on since Ancient Mesopotamia, and probably back further than that. Put the political powers in control of the military, that's what you get. Now granted you have to have some reign on the military, or it would just go off on its own, and that could lead to chaos. It's a catch 22 either way.
As far as Bush getting a clue of what's going on with the American people....fat chance. He's surrounded himself by "Yes" men (and women). People who will tell him whatever he wants to hear, and can spin the truth of what the popularity polls indicate in a way that he can accept them. "It's not that 70 percent of Americans hate you, Mr. President. They are frustrated with the lack of progress on the war on Terror, so if you beef it up, that number will go down." When you surround yourself with these kinds of people...lets just say your perception of reality is a little off kilter.
Attacking Iran or Iraq...either would have been a mistake, as we've now proven, and I've described on various other threads here. But Iran may have bought us some more time before Iraq become a nuclear power. Iraq was starting from farther behind. Just look at Afghanistan, for crying out loud! One of my friend's fathers (a lifetime army officer) just got notice that he has been mobilized, and orders will be cut within the next month either to Iraq, Afghanistan, or Germany. Needless to say, she's hoping for Germany. But, the fact that we still HAVE to have troops in Afghanistan shows how we royally screwed that up. We should be well out of there by now.
As far as Congress and the President using the troops for political gain...duh! They are politicians, that's what they do. People in politics have never shied away from using the military and human lives for political gain. That has been going on since Ancient Mesopotamia, and probably back further than that. Put the political powers in control of the military, that's what you get. Now granted you have to have some reign on the military, or it would just go off on its own, and that could lead to chaos. It's a catch 22 either way.
As far as Bush getting a clue of what's going on with the American people....fat chance. He's surrounded himself by "Yes" men (and women). People who will tell him whatever he wants to hear, and can spin the truth of what the popularity polls indicate in a way that he can accept them. "It's not that 70 percent of Americans hate you, Mr. President. They are frustrated with the lack of progress on the war on Terror, so if you beef it up, that number will go down." When you surround yourself with these kinds of people...lets just say your perception of reality is a little off kilter.
Out of Afghanistan by now? Are you serious? That's part of the problem with today's microwave society. Afghanistan bankrupted Russia in the last 80's, partially with our help, but to think that we would be in and out of there is beyond silly.
In fact, what happened there is pretty well what people wanted to have happen in Iraq, get our boys out for the most part, and have an international force doing the work.
For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.
Revisionist history at it's best.
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
For the record, I do not agree with many of Bush's decisions in Iraq, but to think that John Kerry would have done anything vastly different since 2004 is, again, beyond silly.
If we do pull out of Iraq, the situation in the Middle East is going to get 1000x worse. We need to be there. In the long term, looking 30-50 years down the road, it will be well worth the sacrifice.
Problem is, both emotionally and politically speaking, the American public just does not have the stomach to deal with what needs to be done, the time it will take, and the lives that will be lost. They want everything done now.
It just don't work that way, never has, never will. Like it or not, we had our chance in 2003 to get a foothold right smack dab in the center of the Middle East, and we took it. That I agree with, and would do it again in a heartbeat.
Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general.
In fact, what happened there is pretty well what people wanted to have happen in Iraq, get our boys out for the most part, and have an international force doing the work.
For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.
Revisionist history at it's best.
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
For the record, I do not agree with many of Bush's decisions in Iraq, but to think that John Kerry would have done anything vastly different since 2004 is, again, beyond silly.
If we do pull out of Iraq, the situation in the Middle East is going to get 1000x worse. We need to be there. In the long term, looking 30-50 years down the road, it will be well worth the sacrifice.
Problem is, both emotionally and politically speaking, the American public just does not have the stomach to deal with what needs to be done, the time it will take, and the lives that will be lost. They want everything done now.
It just don't work that way, never has, never will. Like it or not, we had our chance in 2003 to get a foothold right smack dab in the center of the Middle East, and we took it. That I agree with, and would do it again in a heartbeat.
Decisions made since are questionable, but to cut and run would spell disaster on an epic proportion, not only for us, but the Middle East and the world in general.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.
Revisionist history at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
The Khmer Rouge was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, it was an invasion by Vietnamese forces that finally put an end to the slaughter.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/kr.html
As for the "vacuum" comment, the US never had the presence in or commitment to Cambodia that it did with Vietnam. Saying that the crisis would have been averted if the US had no wavered in its support is similar to blaming most atrocities on US/Western apathy - true to an extent, but generally overlooking the reality of modern politics.
For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.
Revisionist history at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
The Khmer Rouge was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, it was an invasion by Vietnamese forces that finally put an end to the slaughter.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/kr.html
As for the "vacuum" comment, the US never had the presence in or commitment to Cambodia that it did with Vietnam. Saying that the crisis would have been averted if the US had no wavered in its support is similar to blaming most atrocities on US/Western apathy - true to an extent, but generally overlooking the reality of modern politics.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region.
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Out of Afghanistan by now? Are you serious? That's part of the problem with today's microwave society. Afghanistan bankrupted Russia in the last 80's, partially with our help, but to think that we would be in and out of there is beyond silly.[/QUOTE]
Guess what the Taliban government did with the money and weapons we gave them after the Russians left?
Looks like we never learn from our own mistakes.
Guess what the Taliban government did with the money and weapons we gave them after the Russians left?
Looks like we never learn from our own mistakes.
Why can't we just impeach Bush and everyone in his administration and let them face trial for all the lies they've been telling us for the past 6 years?
It would be good if we could call for elections right now. Any of the leading candidates is much better than Bush in power for another 20 months.
It would be good if we could call for elections right now. Any of the leading candidates is much better than Bush in power for another 20 months.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.
Revisionist history at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
The Khmer Rouge was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, it was an invasion by Vietnamese forces that finally put an end to the slaughter.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/kr.html
As for the "vacuum" comment, the US never had the presence in or commitment to Cambodia that it did with Vietnam. Saying that the crisis would have been averted if the US had no wavered in its support is similar to blaming most atrocities on US/Western apathy - true to an extent, but generally overlooking the reality of modern politics.
[/QUOTE]
So, you are saying that if the US forces had been there, that the Khmer Rouge would have taken over Cambodia? None of that would have happened.
One can argue being there in the first place, but, once there, you can easily look up the disaster that happened surrounding Vietnam after we left.
All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond.
For those who still think leaving Vietnam the way we did was the way to go, I would strongly suggest that you check your history. The vaccuum that we left there allowed for the murder of nearly 2 million people by the Khmer Rouge.
Revisionist history at it's best.
[/QUOTE]
The Khmer Rouge was in Cambodia, not Vietnam. In fact, it was an invasion by Vietnamese forces that finally put an end to the slaughter.
http://www.yale.edu/cgp/kr.html
As for the "vacuum" comment, the US never had the presence in or commitment to Cambodia that it did with Vietnam. Saying that the crisis would have been averted if the US had no wavered in its support is similar to blaming most atrocities on US/Western apathy - true to an extent, but generally overlooking the reality of modern politics.
[/QUOTE]
So, you are saying that if the US forces had been there, that the Khmer Rouge would have taken over Cambodia? None of that would have happened.
One can argue being there in the first place, but, once there, you can easily look up the disaster that happened surrounding Vietnam after we left.
All I am saying, and I believe rightfully so, is that if the US pulls out of Iraq in a similar fashion as we did in Vietnam, you'll see a similar result with neighboring countries as you saw in Cambodia and beyond.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. [/QUOTE]
Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability.
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. [/QUOTE]
Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability.
"About Iran... I think is 'smart' enough to avoid an even bigger mess. But maybe he should have attacked Iran in the first place, instead of Iraq. As I believe that Iran is a bigger thread to the world population that Iraq has ever been."
You think the USA can attack any country they choose? It was already illegal to attack Iraq who had not done anything to the USA. Not even the ruthless lies by the Bush administration got them a vote for the war by the UN.
Iran has never attacked any of their neighbours. They were attacked by Iraq in the first gulf war when Saddam Hussein was still supported by the USA who funded this war.
Today Iran announced they will send the 15 British soldiers home who were caught when they allegedly entered Iranian territory. They won't be taken to a concentration camp in another country, they won't be detained for years without charges, without legal assistance and without contact with their families. They won't be tortured until they "confess" and finally be tried in a secret miltary tribunal that does not even remotely look like a lawful trial.
Now - who are the war criminals ?
You think the USA can attack any country they choose? It was already illegal to attack Iraq who had not done anything to the USA. Not even the ruthless lies by the Bush administration got them a vote for the war by the UN.
Iran has never attacked any of their neighbours. They were attacked by Iraq in the first gulf war when Saddam Hussein was still supported by the USA who funded this war.
Today Iran announced they will send the 15 British soldiers home who were caught when they allegedly entered Iranian territory. They won't be taken to a concentration camp in another country, they won't be detained for years without charges, without legal assistance and without contact with their families. They won't be tortured until they "confess" and finally be tried in a secret miltary tribunal that does not even remotely look like a lawful trial.
Now - who are the war criminals ?
Bush, learn the lesson... DON'T INVENT MORE WARS, STAY AWAY FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD... We don't want you!!!..
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
So, you are saying that if the US forces had been there, that the Khmer Rouge would have taken over Cambodia? None of that would have happened.
One can argue being there in the first place, but, once there, you can easily look up the disaster that happened surrounding Vietnam after we left.
[/QUOTE]
But it's revisionist to say we were ever in Cambodia. Yes, we had influence and supported a pro-American govt; no, our presence was limited and never equaled Vietnam.
You are arguing that the Khmer Rouge would never have happened if we hadn't left Vietnam, which is just as revisionist as the other side. Communism continued to grow in spite of US intervention in Southeast Asia. Remember, China "fell" to the Communists while we were in Japan and cultural purges, which most likely surpassed the Khmer Rouge, still occurred.
But remove all of that. Do you really think America would have supported an invasion of Cambodia...oh wait, they didn't in 1970/1971, which ended up with widespread protests in the US. It's revisionist to argue that we should never have left in 1975 when years before tension was mounting. There were realities at play that had to be acknowledged.
So, you are saying that if the US forces had been there, that the Khmer Rouge would have taken over Cambodia? None of that would have happened.
One can argue being there in the first place, but, once there, you can easily look up the disaster that happened surrounding Vietnam after we left.
[/QUOTE]
But it's revisionist to say we were ever in Cambodia. Yes, we had influence and supported a pro-American govt; no, our presence was limited and never equaled Vietnam.
You are arguing that the Khmer Rouge would never have happened if we hadn't left Vietnam, which is just as revisionist as the other side. Communism continued to grow in spite of US intervention in Southeast Asia. Remember, China "fell" to the Communists while we were in Japan and cultural purges, which most likely surpassed the Khmer Rouge, still occurred.
But remove all of that. Do you really think America would have supported an invasion of Cambodia...oh wait, they didn't in 1970/1971, which ended up with widespread protests in the US. It's revisionist to argue that we should never have left in 1975 when years before tension was mounting. There were realities at play that had to be acknowledged.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. [/QUOTE]
Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability. [/QUOTE]
So, American Imperialism is a good thing then?
Look. We still have forces in Japan and Germany, what, 50+ years after WWII?
[/QUOTE]
For our own political and international needs, and not to bring "stability" to the region. [/QUOTE]
Which is why we'll be in the Middle East for a long time to come. We were first in Germany and Japan for stability. [/QUOTE]
So, American Imperialism is a good thing then?