You are not logged in.
How many American Soldiers died fighting in FDR's War? Was it greater than the number of Soldiers who died in Bush's two Wars? I think it was. There were battles in the Pacific where more Americans died than in the entire Iraq War thus far. When a battleship gets sunk, that's 3,000 men right there. Like World War II, the War on Terrorism is fought all over the globe, it is fought in the Phillipeans, it is fought in Ethiopia, it is fought in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, in London, Paris, Frankfort, and even on our own shores, by the definitions used for World War I and II, what were fighting is a World War on Terror. If FDR were running for President today under the Democratic Banner, he would not be nominated due to his lack of sufficient "anti-war" credentials.
There was an Anti-War movement in the 1930s too by the way, Adolf Hitler got maximum milage out of it all the way up to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. Hitler was able to build his formidable War machine, thanks in part to all the various Anti-War movements in Europe and America that managed to stay allied hands until that moment on September 1, 1939, when Hitler believe he was ready. The Anti-War movement let him have Austria and Czechoslovakia after all. By the time public opinion permitted the United States to go to war against Germany, Hitler had already conquered most of Europe, it was just luck that Great Britian wasn't taken too, and then we had to begin a massive build up of US troops, we had to draft people and quickly build second rate US tanks to overwhelm the Tiger Tanks quality with sheer numbers.
Many Americans died taking back Europe from the Germans, and we were forced to cooperate with Russia which took more than half of Europe as it price for participation in the War against Hitler, it would have been better if we would have done a little preventative regime change in the Mid-1930s, but our Anti-War/isolationist crowd wouldn't permit it, we had to wait until our backs were to the wall and we had no choice but to fight, and only luck saved us then. Luck gave us the two years to build up are armed forces and prepare them for the Global conflict. FDR's lack of preparation was appauling, and much of the build up we did engage in was at the last hour.
We quickly built up massive armies consisting of tens of millions of inexperienced draftees, who in many cases practiced with wooden guns, that inexperience showed in the battlefields of North Africa, and our soldiers learned on the battlefield at great cost, this is one of the reasons, Winston Churchill suggested the US invade Africa and not France, a failure in Africa would have been less damaging and less consequential than one in France, the Green Troops of the US need practice against the Italians before taking on the Germans..
Offline
Like button can go here
How many American Soldiers died fighting in FDR's War? Was it greater than the number of Soldiers who died in Bush's two Wars? I think it was. There were battles in the Pacific where more Americans died than in the entire Iraq War thus far. When a battleship gets sunk, that's 3,000 men right there. Like World War II, the War on Terrorism is fought all over the globe, it is fought in the Phillipeans, it is fought in Ethiopia, it is fought in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, in London, Paris, Frankfort, and even on our own shores, by the definitions used for World War I and II, what were fighting is a World War on Terror. If FDR were running for President today under the Democratic Banner, he would not be nominated due to his lack of sufficient "anti-war" credentials.
There was an Anti-War movement in the 1930s too by the way, Adolf Hitler got maximum milage out of it all the way up to the Bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941. Hitler was able to build his formidable War machine, thanks in part to all the various Anti-War movements in Europe and America that managed to stay allied hands until that moment on September 1, 1939, when Hitler believe he was ready. The Anti-War movement let him have Austria and Czechoslovakia after all. By the time public opinion permitted the United States to go to war against Germany, Hitler had already conquered most of Europe, it was just luck that Great Britian wasn't taken too, and then we had to begin a massive build up of US troops, we had to draft people and quickly build second rate US tanks to overwhelm the Tiger Tanks quality with sheer numbers.
Many Americans died taking back Europe from the Germans, and we were forced to cooperate with Russia which took more than half of Europe as it price for participation in the War against Hitler, it would have been better if we would have done a little preventative regime change in the Mid-1930s, but our Anti-War/isolationist crowd wouldn't permit it, we had to wait until our backs were to the wall and we had no choice but to fight, and only luck saved us then. Luck gave us the two years to build up are armed forces and prepare them for the Global conflict. FDR's lack of preparation was appauling, and much of the build up we did engage in was at the last hour.
We quickly built up massive armies consisting of tens of millions of inexperienced draftees, who in many cases practiced with wooden guns, that inexperience showed in the battlefields of North Africa, and our soldiers learned on the battlefield at great cost, this is one of the reasons, Winston Churchill suggested the US invade Africa and not France, a failure in Africa would have been less damaging and less consequential than one in France, the Green Troops of the US need practice against the Italians before taking on the Germans..
Your disgusting Tom, the war that FDR was fighting was already going on when the United States joined in.
The two wars that the two Bushes got us into were wars that they started and we didn't have to fight either one of those wars. Besides, George Bush Jr. is still fighting his wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. George Bush Jr. also want to attack Iran, which will start World War III for us and it will devolve into the use of Nuclear weapons. George Bush as a policy that he can attack any country on planet Earth that he want to. The United States isn't the only country on Earth that has nuclear weapons. Should that happen, you will see more people get killed in George Bushes war than got killed during World War II and World War I together. George Bush is not through trying to attack other countries where he can kill more people in other countries, which will get more Americans killed too.
But, I am off the subject!
Question was: What good has George Bush done?
Answer: I see very little that George Bush has done for the American People and even what was done in New Orleans, was too little and way too late in coming when it did come.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, you're just playing silly buggers with history: I even recognize your sources. The truth is that "WWI" was never concluded, which led to "WWII" and the A-bomb finale. Sorry, kid, but your Georgie is strictly a "bush leaguer" when it comes to running a proper world war. In fact, his administration stands a good chance of being written off as the Nation's worst and crookedest ... with almost two years of it still to go. God help us.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, you're just playing silly buggers with history: I even recognize your sources. The truth is that "WWI" was never concluded, which led to "WWII" and the A-bomb finale. Sorry, kid, but your Georgie is strictly a "bush leaguer" when it comes to running a proper world war. In fact, his administration stands a good chance as being written off as the Nation's worst and crookedest ... with almost two years of it still to go. God help us.
George W. Bush and Franklin D. Roosevelt have more in common than you'd like to admit. Dicktice, you're just playing silly buggers with history: I even recognize your sources. The truth is that "Persian Gulf War I" was never concluded, wich led to "Persian Gulf War II" aka "The Iraq War", which is not yet concluded. Like FDR, George W. Bush choose not to play the isolationist, and like FDR, he felt that the dictator needed to be put in his place. It is too bad their aren't any Democrats like FDR anymore who at least was patriotic and wanted his country to win the War rather than lose, it is depressing listening to all the Democratic Presidential candidates talk about the War, they all shake their heads and say the war cannot be won, so I wonder why I should bother voting for any of them if they are so useless and can't win the war. If as they say, that George Bush is a poor leader, then clearly a better leader than George Bush can win the War where he can't, but I don't hear any Democrats telling us how he can win the war. All I hear is them talking about giving up and pulling out, FDR would never have talked that way! But I guess the rank and file of the Democratic Party today would rather have this hopeless useless talk from their candidates and would not vote for a Democratic Candidate who said he could win, tis a shame that they have such a loser mentality.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, you're just playing silly buggers with history: I even recognize your sources. The truth is that "WWI" was never concluded, which led to "WWII" and the A-bomb finale. Sorry, kid, but your Georgie is strictly a "bush leaguer" when it comes to running a proper world war. In fact, his administration stands a good chance as being written off as the Nation's worst and crookedest ... with almost two years of it still to go. God help us.
I have run into guy's like him on other forums, it a waste of time trying to carry on and intelligent conversation with them. He has his opinion and don't try to confuse him with the fact, because his mind is made up and he not going to be changing his mind no matter what kind of documentation or proof that you have. In there eyes, there opinion carries the same weight that any proof that you can possibly come up with. They alway have an answer why there opinion is superior to the truth or documentation that you should have or even if you should have a video of the event, it still would make any difference to changing there opinion. They will still have there opinion and you will still be armed with the truth, the documentation and even the video when you leave.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
Sink a battleship or an aircraft carrier in World War II and you lose 3000 sailors right there, that is the amount of troops that we lost in the Iraq War over the last 5 years. I find it unfair that the standards the liberals apply to George W. Bush are much higher than what were applied to FDR. If 3000 is too many casualities for right now and we must pull out, what are the standards that will be applied for tomorrow, 300? If we cannot stand to lose 300 troops in armed combat what does that imply for the usefulness of our armed forces in the future, how will they protect us if we cannot stand to lose 300 of them, does that mean that civilians are more expendable than soldiers?
Offline
Like button can go here
Re. "... if we cannot stand to lose 300 of them, does that mean that civilians are more expendable than soldiers? ..."
As a former GI/Dogface infantryman, I remember the shock of disbelief at the death of FDR, and another shock of relief at the Truman approved dropping of the A-bombs. My mind was made up then--having survived the non-invasion of Japan--that war is dumb to the point of insanity, and that noncombatant war-lovers are cowards at heart.
Offline
Like button can go here
Seems obvious doesn't it?
The money will come from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact if we win the war in Iraq, Iraq will be better able to pay since it has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East, but Iraq will only be able to pay if we win the war there and don't cut and run.
If we cut and run, we'll be left holding the bill, since the insurgents we left there will be messing thing up for Iraq and preventing the flow of oil. If we want to be paid back for the Iraq War effort, we have to put Iraq back up on its feet so it can pay us. Isn't that obvious, or is there some flaw with that logic?
Obviously we need some change in tactic, and George Bush is trying, but the only tactic the Democrats will consider is cut and run, and that will leave us holding the bill and Iraq incapable of paying it.
Tom you are trillions in debt and Iraq will never pay you back. For every $10 you spend on Iraq the most you will ever get back is 10 cents. This is due to Iraq being an economic disaster zone everything has to be rebuilt and repaired and im not just talking about the Goverment. The Oil industry is rapidly getting up to speed but the rest of the countries infrastructure is a mess.
Afghanistan has but one major product and that is Heroin. So count that out.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
Re. "... if we cannot stand to lose 300 of them, does that mean that civilians are more expendable than soldiers? ..."
As a former GI/Dogface infantryman, I remember the shock of disbelief at the death of FDR, and another shock of relief at the Truman approved dropping of the A-bombs. My mind was made up then--having survived to non-invasion of Japan--that war is dumb to the point of insanity, and that noncombatant war-lovers are cowards at heart.
That's a very convenient time to come to the realization that War in general is dumb, especially with the enemy already defeated and all. Oh, I agree with you, World War II was a dumb idea, and if given a choice, I would not have started it...
But I didn't start it did I, Hitler did, and Tojo joined in along with Musolinni, they thought World War II was a great opportunity to get in on the groud floor of Hitler's grand scheme to build his Germanic Empire, and the other two wanted the scraps and a share of the spoils from his conquest, and you know what, Hitler would have loved it if there were a number of men who thought resistance was futile and didn't put up a fight allowing Hitler to accumulate his grand Empire cheap and easily.
The people who start wars are not us. If the enemy comes to conquer my civilization or destroy my way of life, I would put up a fight, is that a waste, or should we give up our freedoms easily and without much struggle?
Offline
Like button can go here
Seems obvious doesn't it?
The money will come from Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact if we win the war in Iraq, Iraq will be better able to pay since it has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the Middle East, but Iraq will only be able to pay if we win the war there and don't cut and run.
If we cut and run, we'll be left holding the bill, since the insurgents we left there will be messing thing up for Iraq and preventing the flow of oil. If we want to be paid back for the Iraq War effort, we have to put Iraq back up on its feet so it can pay us. Isn't that obvious, or is there some flaw with that logic?
Obviously we need some change in tactic, and George Bush is trying, but the only tactic the Democrats will consider is cut and run, and that will leave us holding the bill and Iraq incapable of paying it.
Tom you are trillions in debt and Iraq will never pay you back. For every $10 you spend on Iraq the most you will ever get back is 10 cents. This is due to Iraq being an economic disaster zone everything has to be rebuilt and repaired and im not just talking about the Goverment. The Oil industry is rapidly getting up to speed but the rest of the countries infrastructure is a mess.
Afghanistan has but one major product and that is Heroin. So count that out.
That depends on what terms of repayment we set. If we just abandon Iraq, we will get nothing back and that's guaranteed. The cost is not that great when put in relative terms, the 3,100 soldiers we lost amounts to the number of sailors crewing a large capital ship that gets sunk in the Battle of the Atlantic. Economically the cost is not that high either. Look at the sacrifices our grandparents and great grandparents made during world war II, they had to endure rationing and high taxes, and we endure neither, the Iraq war is not that costly, it is just the media that is protraying it as such because they would like to see us lose.
Another form of repayment is the imporved situation we see in the middle east, if the countries are democratic and the people more moderate, we would have to worry less about terrorism than if we simply hide under our bed and abandon them.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, that's damned generous of you to cross off 3,100 lives of your GI's, not to mention the crippling casualties and the economic costs "that are not that high either." You should rush right down now, and join up before those yellow-bellies in Congress vote to pull out of IRAQ and spoil your fun.
Offline
Like button can go here
Tom, that's damned generous of you to cross off 3,100 lives of your GI's, not to mention the crippling casualties and the economic costs "that are not that high either." You should rush right down now, and join up before those yellow-bellies in Congress vote to pull out of IRAQ and spoil your fun.
Don't look at me, I didn't kill them, the enemy did! I don't think the enemy ought to be able to kill 3,100 US soldiers and get off for it scott free. You standards for how to conduct a war are historically unprecidented. George S. Patton couldn't meet that standard for casuality avoidance that you seem to demand for our modern troops, Douglas McArthur could not meet that standard. If you are a World War II vet, I don't know how you can expect our generals to meet that standard in modern times when it couldn't be met in yours.
Try to win a war without significant casualities on your own side, that is an almost impossible standard to meet for any war that is of significant duration. I'll tell you what 3,100 means, it is the population of my high school in 1985 when I graduated. I know there are many thousands upon thousands of high schools in this country, and the War in Iraq has only taken out the equivalent of one. If the lives of our soldiers are too precious to risk, we might as well discharge them all into civilian life, as they can be of no value to this country or its defense if they are too precious for us to risk. and without an army we are vulnerable to other foreign armed forces that do not value the lives of their individual soldiers a as much as we do, they will conquer us and we will cease to exist as a country. The new foreign occupiers would then draft us into their armed services as much as they please, and will not care if our Johnnies come home on their own two feet or in a casket, as government will not be responsive to popular opinion or the antiwar crowd. I would think a World War II vet would understand this.
Offline
Like button can go here
We were drafted, and didn't have a thing to say about it. If Harry Truman had thought the way you do, we'd be fighting Japanese suicide-bombers instead of the ones Bush has stirred up. But that was then, and this is now ... so I intend to leave it and go on to more productive topics. Have fun.
Offline
Like button can go here
We were drafted, and didn't have a thing to say about it. If Harry Truman had thought the way you do, we'd be fighting Japanese suicide-bombers instead of the ones Bush has stirred up. But that was then, and this is now ... so I intend to leave it and go on to more productive topics. Have fun.
We did fight Japanese suicide bombers. i don't think Bush stirred up the Muslim Suicide bombers, George Bush was minding his own business when they attacked the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, then he took action.
Offline
Like button can go here
Americans have been more than willing to pay the price for war- when the price is worth it.
We were led into a war with Afghanistan and understood the cost and believed it to be the right thing to do because of 9/11. We were then informed, incorrectly, that iraq presented a clear and present danger to our immediate saftey.
This has been proven false. Iraq did not pose an immediate threat. Iraq did not pose a short term or medium threat. The immediate threats were and are Iran and North Korea.
Georige Bush's administration trumped up intelligence and presented it as fact to the american people to garner support for an invasion of iraq. The american people believed their president, and supported the decision to invade Iraq to protect america and her allies from a clear, immediate, and present danger.
Support for this invasion has waned not because of the number of US casulties, but because in hindsight, the american people are discovering that iraq was not an immediate threat. the american people are discovering that planning for the invasion was not done adquetly enough to allow for the appropriate resources to succeed in the plan. The american people, based on the facts, have decided that 3200 dead american soldiers, and 23,417 wounded is not worth the price for what even George Bush admits will only be a partial victory.
unfortunetly Iraq NOW poses an immediate threat to american security. it poses an immediate threat because of the way the american executive branch planned and executed the invasion of iraq. Oh irony, the very thing that the George Bush administration claimed to want to prevent is actually the cause.
I unfortunetly find myself agreeing that we need to do everything in our power to succeed in Iraq. I think it is a travesty that poor US military men and women have the unfotunate job of trying to succeed without being given the resources or the competant leadership they deserve. George Bush failed the american people, and led us into a war we did not need to fight, without planning or preparing appropriately for victory. George Bush has demonstrated that he lacked the foresight, the wisdom, or the basic ability to formulate an alternate strategy that would lead us to success.
Offline
Like button can go here
I agree with you clark and though the budget dollars are getting larger so where is the money going since it is not making its way to the Soldiers?
Education reform was another area tha Bush tried but I think is failing in. Dozens in GOP turn against ‘No Child’ act; States could opt out of testing mandates under proposed changes by allowing states to opt out of its testing mandates.
Once-innovative public schools have increasingly become captive to federal testing mandates, jettisoning education programs not covered by those tests, siphoning funds from programs for the talented and gifted, and discouraging creativity, critics say.
Offline
Like button can go here
I agree with you clark and though the budget dollars are getting larger so where is the money going since it is not making its way to the Soldiers?
Where is that money?
To Haliburton with there no bidder contracts to rebuild Iraq. It is also going to financing the build up of private mercenary army while the US armed forces get cut pieces. Our military people aren't getting the medical care they need either, so the money not going there either.
Larry,
Offline
Like button can go here
Americans have been more than willing to pay the price for war- when the price is worth it.
We were led into a war with Afghanistan and understood the cost and believed it to be the right thing to do because of 9/11. We were then informed, incorrectly, that iraq presented a clear and present danger to our immediate saftey.
So you advocate a "Chicken Feathers" foreign policy to leave an impression in our enemies minds that we are weak or cowards? What does that do for our enemies willingness to engage us later on and embroil us in further wars? They'll assume we'll just chicken out if they manage to kill and certain number of us. Playing games about initial assumptions and excuses for withdrawing will do us no good, as we'll still look like cowards and the enemy will suppose they frightened us away because they killed a certain number of troops. Somalia in a similar vein emboldened the enemy to attack us at 9/11. And right now Congress is trying to do the terrorists a great favor by bueocratizing the armed forces with a series of hoops and requirements before they can respond to an enemy attack.
This has been proven false. Iraq did not pose an immediate threat. Iraq did not pose a short term or medium threat. The immediate threats were and are Iran and North Korea.
Then how come Congress wanted to place further obstacles in front of the President before he can invade Iran? Why is Congress trying to force the President to talk to the Iranians and the Syrians, if they are the real threats? if the Defense Department is made into a buerocratic morass, it can't respond to threats in a timely fashion. If their problem is with this President, then they should focus on the next president rather than trying to shift Presidential powers into the hands of Congress. Congress is not capable of directing troop movements, and if it does, it will only get troops killed and lead them to defeat. I'd much rather put Generals Uniforms on each of the Congressmen and have them individually lead troop movements of various units rather than having them command the armed forces collectively. I think our generals have more experience leading our troops than Congress collectively has. Any Congressman who says the troops should do X, Y and Z, should take on one of our generals and test his meddal against theirs.
Georige Bush's administration trumped up intelligence and presented it as fact to the american people to garner support for an invasion of iraq. The american people believed their president, and supported the decision to invade Iraq to protect america and her allies from a clear, immediate, and present danger.
Support for this invasion has waned not because of the number of US casulties, but because in hindsight, the american people are discovering that iraq was not an immediate threat. the american people are discovering that planning for the invasion was not done adquetly enough to allow for the appropriate resources to succeed in the plan. The american people, based on the facts, have decided that 3200 dead american soldiers, and 23,417 wounded is not worth the price for what even George Bush admits will only be a partial victory.
unfortunetly Iraq NOW poses an immediate threat to american security. it poses an immediate threat because of the way the american executive branch planned and executed the invasion of iraq. Oh irony, the very thing that the George Bush administration claimed to want to prevent is actually the cause.
I unfortunetly find myself agreeing that we need to do everything in our power to succeed in Iraq. I think it is a travesty that poor US military men and women have the unfotunate job of trying to succeed without being given the resources or the competant leadership they deserve. George Bush failed the american people, and led us into a war we did not need to fight, without planning or preparing appropriately for victory. George Bush has demonstrated that he lacked the foresight, the wisdom, or the basic ability to formulate an alternate strategy that would lead us to success.
Saddam Hussein did invade Kuwait, past experience proves the threat, whether he had chemical weapons was besides the point, he was a threat to the region.
The problem is Congress, and the Media have raised the expectations forcing him to do more with less than FDR had. It is purely partisan, the simple answer is the Democrats want the Republican President to fail even if that also means the United States fails, they hurt the United States so they can assume power and take control. Sort of like the crew of the ship sabotaging its engines so they can oust the captian for poor management skills.
Offline
Like button can go here
I advocate a foreign policy predicated on ensuring American security when it is directly threatened. I advocate a foreign policy that ensures that any and all resources are directed toward achieving the goals. I advocate a foreign policy that is not predicated on political partisanship, opportunism, or deceit to the American people. I advocate a foreign policy where direct conflict is the last resort, not the first solution.
You can mischaracterize the situation any way you please, however, Congress is seeking to impose its will on the Executive branch, as is their constitutional duty, in order to effect a change in how this war is executed. Congress has been forced to take this drastic action precisely because the executive branch has failed time and time again, and has shown no willingness nor desire to modify its course of action in what is obviously a failure.
The greatest military might on earth has been bogged down for several years with no tangible signs of success, nor any near term hope of a solid conclusion. Why? How?
This has occurred because of politics- but not from Congress. The Executive branch made a political decision to send in fewer troops, and the generals that disagreed were shown the door.
The Executive branch determined to invade Iraq, using intelligence that suited their particular objective, and ignored the intelligence analysts who pointed out the flaws in their own assumptions.
The Executive branch, determined to carry out military action on a country that was not a direct threat to our strategic interests did not plan adequately for the post-invasion, and as a result, the executive branch has squandered blood, treasure, and limited our strategic flexibility in dealing with other issues that affect our interests.
The Executive branch failed our military through sheer incompetence and arrogance, and as a result, we are now stuck in Iraq with few worthwhile options. I readily admit that we need to stay in Iraq, but we need to be honest about why that is, and what needs to be done in order to effect an actual tangible success. You cry about Congress and Democratic would be presidents, but you also ignore the fact that Bush has no new ideas, and none of the republican candidates offer any realistic solutions.
We have been staying the course like a bunch of good little lemmings and all we have to show for it is a more dangerous Iraq, a bunch of dead or maimed Americans, the hatred of the world, a breaking economy, and an army that is over extended.
I applaud you for the strength of your convictions. The faith you show in the repeated failures of our sitting president is simply breathtaking.
Offline
Like button can go here
I advocate a foreign policy predicated on ensuring American security when it is directly threatened. I advocate a foreign policy that ensures that any and all resources are directed toward achieving the goals. I advocate a foreign policy that is not predicated on political partisanship, opportunism, or deceit to the American people. I advocate a foreign policy where direct conflict is the last resort, not the first solution.
Jimmy Carter tried that one, direct conflict was always the last resort with him, the very very last resort, and Jimmy Carter always found that he can always talk some more, negotiate some more, he stayed up late nights trying to negotiate the release of the hostages, and an inordinate amount of his time was used up trying to negotiate with the Revolutionary "Republic" of Iran with very little progress, he figured the choice was that or lose the 44 hostages and declare war on Iran, but he chose to talk and talk, conucted a token rescue mission that was a failure and talked some more. He made clear that if Iran executed any hostages, there would be consequences, Iran didn't, but it didn't release any either, and so Jimmy Carter just talked and talked, and never used force against Iran, mostly because the Reporters put the pictures of the hostages up on the TV, so Jimmy couldn't sacrifice them by giving the Iranians a deadline and if not met, declare war on them. If you always leave force as a last resort, you may never resort to it, even if you should, because one can always talk uselessly some more.
So Clark, do you want another Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter didn't seem too popular in this country, they weren't satisfied with his late nights of trying to release the hostages, and his sweaters, and his turning down the White House Thermostats, and his inflation and gas rationing. Well the American people got tired of him and didn't reelect him. Do you want to put another one like that in the White House? I'll tell you now, he's going to last one term and then he's out, 4 years wasted.
You can mischaracterize the situation any way you please, however, Congress is seeking to impose its will on the Executive branch, as is their constitutional duty, in order to effect a change in how this war is executed.
So they want to effectively eliminate the office of President by taking away all the powers of that office and micromanage the executive branch by Congressional commitee, simply because they don't like the current office holder. You know if you alter the presidency in this way, the next President is not going to be able to do much good, he won't be able to direct troops or protect this country, and Congress is not going to do what you want, its going to lead the troops into humiliating defeat by zeroing out their budget, and later on were going to have some dictators challenge us in all regions of the world, invading our allies, or formenting revolutions and creating hostile powers, while Congress fiddles, the US soldiers march back and forth in their bases unable to do anything about it , because Congress won't let them.
Congress has been forced to take this drastic action precisely because the executive branch has failed time and time again, and has shown no willingness nor desire to modify its course of action in what is obviously a failure.
And the Congress is so much wiser than the President? I don't think that even you believe that, and if you do, you would be a fool. Committees make poor generals, they cannot react fast enough to rapidly changing military situations, all the can do is debate and vote.
The greatest military might on earth has been bogged down for several years with no tangible signs of success, nor any near term hope of a solid conclusion. Why? How?
Has to do with the rules of engagement. if Vladimir Putin were directing this war, and he wanted to win, he would simply destroy those areas that offered him too much resistance, and the war would be over. Because of our humanitarian concerns, the war drags on. We tend to spare the enemy in order to save the innocent, while Putin is Prepared to sacrifice the innocent in order to defeat the enemy. I think its important that we learn to fight insurgencies, and not retreat from them, otherwise men like Putin will eventually rule the Globe and defeat democracy which is unwilling to defend itself for humanitarian reasons.
As it is, it takes 5 years to equal the casualities of a battleship sunk during World War II. Just because the Media zooms in on their faces, and their next of kin, doesn't make them anymore than the crew manifest of a single battleship lost during World War II.
This has occurred because of politics- but not from Congress. The Executive branch made a political decision to send in fewer troops, and the generals that disagreed were shown the door.
And now they are invited back with a troop surge and now the Congress says no way. George Bush is trying to correct this mistake and Congress is saying, No Way, we want to lose and humiliate the troops, so we can take the White House in 2008.
The Executive branch determined to invade Iraq, using intelligence that suited their particular objective, and ignored the intelligence analysts who pointed out the flaws in their own assumptions.
Ever hear the expression, Assume the Worst?
We all know what a peace lover Saddam Hussein is, the man wouldn't hurt a fly. The worst case scenario when we assume the worst is that we remove a brutal dictator and giver the Iraqis another chance at democracy.
The Worst case scenario is we don't assume the Worst was Saddam taking over the Middle East, by invading Saudi Arabia, and aquiring nuclear weapons and handing them out to terrorists.
The Executive branch, determined to carry out military action on a country that was not a direct threat to our strategic interests did not plan adequately for the post-invasion, and as a result, the executive branch has squandered blood, treasure, and limited our strategic flexibility in dealing with other issues that affect our interests.
So Presidents aren't allowed to make mistakes are they, President's like Lincoln, and FDR? The Surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was unforgivable, the FDR Administration was unprepared, so that is a sign of FDRs incompetance and Congress should act immediately to make it difficult for him to order troops around the World and fight the War.
Basically what your saying is that the President made a mistake, so lets make it harder for him, or lets just give up and lose the war.
The Executive branch failed our military through sheer incompetence and arrogance, and as a result, we are now stuck in Iraq with few worthwhile options. I readily admit that we need to stay in Iraq, but we need to be honest about why that is, and what needs to be done in order to effect an actual tangible success.
I have no problem with Congress getting into a historical debate about what should have been done differently, but when they try to interfere with the proscecution of the war, and do not allow the President to apply lessons learned, then I have a really big problem with that.
You cry about Congress and Democratic would be presidents, but you also ignore the fact that Bush has no new ideas, and none of the republican candidates offer any realistic solutions.
We have been staying the course like a bunch of good little lemmings and all we have to show for it is a more dangerous Iraq, a bunch of dead or maimed Americans, the hatred of the world,
Yeah the World don't like democracies, they are always rooting for the mustached villian, so screw the World!
a breaking economy, and an army that is over extended.
I applaud you for the strength of your convictions. The faith you show in the repeated failures of our sitting president is simply breathtaking.
Lincoln was a miserable failure in prosecuting the Civil War, he has shown nothing but incompetance, until the War was won. if congress took over the executive, the South would have won. the main problem is George Bush stuck with the same generals for too long, it is time to get new ones, not tie their hands. Congress has no military expertise, they don't know how to win, and have shown very little interest in doing so.
Offline
Like button can go here
Jimmy Carter tried that one, direct conflict was always the last resort with him, the very very last resort, and Jimmy Carter always found that he can always talk some more, negotiate some more, he stayed up late nights trying to negotiate the release of the hostages, and an inordinate amount of his time was used up trying to negotiate with the Revolutionary "Republic" of Iran with very little progress, he figured the choice was that or lose the 44 hostages and declare war on Iran, but he chose to talk and talk, conucted a token rescue mission that was a failure and talked some more. He made clear that if Iran executed any hostages, there would be consequences, Iran didn't, but it didn't release any either, and so Jimmy Carter just talked and talked, and never used force against Iran, mostly because the Reporters put the pictures of the hostages up on the TV, so Jimmy couldn't sacrifice them by giving the Iranians a deadline and if not met, declare war on them. If you always leave force as a last resort, you may never resort to it, even if you should, because one can always talk uselessly some more.
So Clark, do you want another Jimmy Carter? Jimmy Carter didn't seem too popular in this country, they weren't satisfied with his late nights of trying to release the hostages, and his sweaters, and his turning down the White House Thermostats, and his inflation and gas rationing. Well the American people got tired of him and didn't reelect him. Do you want to put another one like that in the White House? I'll tell you now, he's going to last one term and then he's out, 4 years wasted.
I did a study on Jimmy Carter. He was one of the most maligned presidents and cannot be blamed for the rise of Islamic Iran or the hostage crisis. He can be though acclaimed for helping to destroy the Soviet Union and destroying the cold war.
We will start with the Iran situation. Iran had real problems with the foreign backed Shah and there had been for decades a movement against him and the western powers (the west had already backed a coup against a nationalistic goverment). What really peeved the Iranians though was that when the Shah left the country as it boiled over he was being flown to the US on a US diplomatic jet. When the new leader of Iran, Khomeni called for demonstrations against these foreign powers the students actually planned to take over not only the US embassy but also the USSRs. But then over the airwaves from Turkey came Radio Turkeys belief that the USA would get another coup to put the Shah back in charge and later that week large crowds gathered outside the US embassy and eventually came over the walls. Of course the students had ment to take over (they had done it before) but they had the very vocal backing of most Iranians.
Many of the embassy staff got away and where able to be hidden in the Canadian and Swiss embassies. 66 though where captured and the demands of the hostage takers where for the return of the Shah for trial (and execution). A military operation called Eagle Claw was tried and it was an unqualified disaster. So the president started talks and days before Reagan took power the basis of the Algerian accords where signed and the treaty for the hostages to be freed was arranged. Reagan took the credit for what Carter arranged.
By the way in the only private session since the second world war the Canadian parliement took the unique decision to issue passports to all the hidden diplomatic staff so they could get out of Iran. They broke international law to help there ally.
How did Carter help to destroy the USSR. In 1979 afghanistan was invaded by the USSR. Carter blocked grain and fuel shipments to the USSR as a result but he also ordered the creation of Operation Cyclone. This is where the Afghan tribal leaders where armed and financed by the USA to fight the USSR creating what became the USSRs Vietnam. Unlike Reagan who benefitted from the links Carter put in only local afghans where so trained not till Reagan took over where all the foreign nationals determined to fight the Soviets armed and trained as well.
Incidentally this was a history project when written though it is a good example of the principle that even with so much power you just cant control events and that if you use military force it not necassarily will go the way you want. I only did this project since we where not allowed to do one on the more relevant to my peers Falklands war.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
I did a study on Jimmy Carter. He was one of the most maligned presidents and cannot be blamed for the rise of Islamic Iran or the hostage crisis. He can be though acclaimed for helping to destroy the Soviet Union and destroying the cold war.
Jimmy Carter should have given the Iranians two weeks, or however long it took to position an invasion strike force in the vicintity of Iran. Once the time has expired, Jimmy Carter should have attacked and overthrown the government.
The hostages would be presumed as prisoners of war, and if they are executed of mistreated, we would scour the country for the war criminals and bring them to justice, that is what Jimmy Carter should have done, then we could topple the revolutionary government and install our own. The whole hostage crisis is why I don't think very well of Iran as a country. The point was Jimmy Carter was unable to get reelected, even with a liberal press on his side.
We will start with the Iran situation. Iran had real problems with the foreign backed Shah and there had been for decades a movement against him and the western powers (the west had already backed a coup against a nationalistic goverment). What really peeved the Iranians though was that when the Shah left the country as it boiled over he was being flown to the US on a US diplomatic jet. When the new leader of Iran, Khomeni called for demonstrations against these foreign powers the students actually planned to take over not only the US embassy but also the USSRs.
There is something called diplomatic immunity, I'm surprised the Iranians haven't heard of it. There miserable treatment of our diplomatic personal and there refusal to respect their diplomatic immunity is the reason we should not be talking to those savages today. People who take diplomats hostage should not be negotiated with since they do not respect the protocols of negotiation. The diplomats, that they took hostage are they ones they should have negotiated with, not negotiated over. I saw Americans burning Iranian flags in those days, and stupid Carter was saying they shouldn't do that. Well if the Iranians wanted peace with us, they certainly took a giant step in the wrong direction. One does not talk with criminals.
But then over the airwaves from Turkey came Radio Turkeys belief that the USA would get another coup to put the Shah back in charge and later that week large crowds gathered outside the US embassy and eventually came over the walls. Of course the students had ment to take over (they had done it before) but they had the very vocal backing of most Iranians.
I frankly don't care, their "revolution" wasn't democratic, it gave no voice to the people. I don't see the Ayatollah as inherently better than the Shah. The Shah at least was a secular leader and didn't pretend to hold the gates of heaven like this Ayatollah does, I prefer honesty in a leader, and the Ayatollah was a liar pretending that he has a aspecial relationship with God as he calls for people's deaths. I totally disrespect their religion, and people who would want such a government over the Shah's. If it was people who were fighting for a representative government, that would be different, but they weren't. If it were going to be one thug over another, I'd rather give them our thug, rather than let them select their own. Terrorism is evil and the Ayatollah supported terrorism, and that gives the religion he represents a black mark in my eyes. The other leaders of shiism didn't denounce him as the Pope would have done had a Catholic Priest undertaken such barbarity.
Many of the embassy staff got away and where able to be hidden in the Canadian and Swiss embassies. 66 though where captured and the demands of the hostage takers where for the return of the Shah for trial (and execution). A military operation called Eagle Claw was tried and it was an unqualified disaster. So the president started talks and days before Reagan took power the basis of the Algerian accords where signed and the treaty for the hostages to be freed was arranged. Reagan took the credit for what Carter arranged.
Or maybe they were afraid of what Reagan would do to them. The Foreign community did not give Jimmy Carter much support when he was President. If they all did their thing, he Jimmy would have had no trouble during his administration and gotten reelected. But the World Community gave Jimmy problem after problem.
The Arabs for instance could have lowered the price of oil, and that would have helped Jimmy get reelected, but they didn't. The Soviets could have held off the invasion of Afghanistan until Jimmy Carter had completed his second term in office out of respect for a fellow left-wing leader, but they did not.
By the way in the only private session since the second world war the Canadian parliement took the unique decision to issue passports to all the hidden diplomatic staff so they could get out of Iran. They broke international law to help there ally.
How did Carter help to destroy the USSR. In 1979 afghanistan was invaded by the USSR. Carter blocked grain and fuel shipments to the USSR as a result but he also ordered the creation of Operation Cyclone. This is where the Afghan tribal leaders where armed and financed by the USA to fight the USSR creating what became the USSRs Vietnam. Unlike Reagan who benefitted from the links Carter put in only local afghans where so trained not till Reagan took over where all the foreign nationals determined to fight the Soviets armed and trained as well.
Incidentally this was a history project when written though it is a good example of the principle that even with so much power you just cant control events and that if you use military force it not necassarily will go the way you want. I only did this project since we where not allowed to do one on the more relevant to my peers Falklands war.
Carter was unable to demonstrate any of these "accomplishments" in time to get reelected, and those examples all bore fruit long after he was out of power, and were managed by his successor, Ronald Reagan. Most Americans have bad memories of the Carter Administration.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well it seems that weapons of mass destruction have finally been found:
BAGHDAD - Multiple suicide bombings struck the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, and about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops were treated for exposure to chlorine gas, the military said Saturday. At least two policemen also were killed in the attacks.
The violence started Friday afternoon when a driver detonated the explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.
That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 residents showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.
Another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives Friday evening, also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.
Suicide car bombers have used chlorine against Iraqis in Anbar a total of five times since Jan. 28, it said.
And thus that justifies the invasion of Iraq. Don't believe me, then tall that to those soldiers who are suffering from chlorine gas exposure.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well it seems that weapons of mass destruction have finally been found:
BAGHDAD - Multiple suicide bombings struck the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Anbar province, and about 350 Iraqi civilians and six U.S. troops were treated for exposure to chlorine gas, the military said Saturday. At least two policemen also were killed in the attacks.
The violence started Friday afternoon when a driver detonated the explosives in a pickup truck northeast of Ramadi, wounding one U.S. service member and one Iraqi civilian, the military said in a statement.
That was followed by a similar explosion involving a dump truck south of Fallujah in Amiriyah that killed two policemen and left as many as 100 residents showing signs of chlorine exposure, with symptoms ranging from minor skin and lung irritations to vomiting, the military said.
Another suicide bomber detonated a dump truck containing a 200-gallon chlorine tank rigged with explosives Friday evening, also south of Fallujah in the Albu Issa tribal region, the military said. U.S. forces responded to the attack and found about 250 local civilians, including seven children, suffering from symptoms related to chlorine exposure, according to the statement.
Suicide car bombers have used chlorine against Iraqis in Anbar a total of five times since Jan. 28, it said.
And thus that justifies the invasion of Iraq. Don't believe me, then tall that to those soldiers who are suffering from chlorine gas exposure.
Tom, Chlorine was easily used by Al-Qaeda it is a very common substance and is used to treat water for bacterial growth. It is common in Iraq and all hot countries where you have to treat pools or water towers or even your own water tank. The insurgents simply blew up a bomb next to a drum of chlorine which can be found for sale in any handy hardware store to do this effect. It is not a WMD that is reserved for the use of nerve agents and similar.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Like button can go here
Chlorine was used during world war I as a chemical weapons. One does not chlorinate swimming pools with a tank of compressed Chlorine gas.
What's the point of looking for WMDs if the liberals are going to make an excuse for everything found and give Saddam a pass on it. If its Plutionium, its for a commerical reactor, it is chlorine, its for the swimming pools, it its a potential nerve agent its to make fertilizer etc. And all these non-WMDs fall into terrorists hands and conveninetly use it as a weapon yet you say some GIs burned out lungs does not constitute proof of the existance of chemical weapons in Iraq.
Offline
Like button can go here