Experts: Bush needs to fire NS team

[ElHombre]

Bush had a team of five military historians over today (all part of the new 'Bush is listening to advice on Iraq' strategy the WH has put into place), three of them generals. While they all agreed with the first part of the ISG report (the Bush Iraq policy has failed), the second part is getting the most scrutiny. Bush wants alternatives to the recommendations of the ISG. Aside from the usual 'more or fewer troops' bit, I found this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/11/AR2006121100508.html) interesting:


The group suggested the president shake up his national security team. "All of us said they have failed, that you need a new team," said one participant. That recommendation is likely to fuel Pentagon rumors that Bush and his new defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, may decide to replace Marine Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pardon my asking, but wasn't it the civilain part of the group which shares a good part of the blame for the Iraq clusterf***? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc... (Rumsfeld's already gone, of course).

[MPNFL]

Pardon my asking, but wasn't it the civilain part of the group which shares a good part of the blame for the Iraq clusterf***? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc... (Rumsfeld's already gone, of course).

yup 12345678

[Ordie]

Once agian the military gets shafted.

If Pace were to retire, he'll join the ranks of other flag officers who are against Bush's policy.

[vinny_121_ND]

Experts say he should fire them, but however, if a new panel tells him how Iraq should be run, then he's gonna fire them right off the bat. Bush is really inflexible. I still like our CinC.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Experts say he should fire them, but however, if a new panel tells him how Iraq should be run, then he's gonna fire them right off the bat. Bush is really inflexible. I still like our CinC.

I thought the Iraqi people were supposed to decide how Iraq should be run. Wasn't that what it was supposed to be all about? How naive of me :roll:

[budgie]

Naive indeed. This is how it works. The Bush administration tells the Iraqis what to decide then they decide. Get it now? That's freedom.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Naive indeed. This is how it works. The Bush administration tells the Iraqis what to decide then they decide. Get it now? That's freedom.

Ah I see now. The scales have been removed from my eyes.

[XShipRider]

Pardon my asking, but wasn't it the civilain part of the group which shares a good part of the blame for the Iraq clusterf***? Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, etc... (Rumsfeld's already gone, of course).

But you forgot to mention 90+% of Congress, the people that made it
all possible by voting for it (before they were against it). I put Repub'
and Dem' alike in this category.

I repeat: If Congress had had the cajones to speak up BEFORE
we sent troop #1 into Iraqi territory we would not be in this
mess.

We have to remember they were all hoodwinked by the bumbling,
unintelligent, idiotic, moron who can't find his way through a three
sentence paragraph. It still amazes me how they claim "Bush lied"
but not one of the intelligensia on Capitol Hill saw through it. Mmmmkay.

[gaijinsamurai]

Interesting article. No doubt, you will probably get flack from some of the members on this forum for being "a hippy liberal" , "helping the enemy" and "waging war against the president".

[AK74]

more "teams" more money from taxpayers into their pockets.

why would anyone politically correct fire em?

politican one:" they are making money!(from taxpayers) we are progressing!(backwards)"

[bugkill]

But you forgot to mention 90+% of Congress, the people that made it
all possible by voting for it (before they were against it). I put Repub'
and Dem' alike in this category.

I repeat: If Congress had had the cajones to speak up BEFORE
we sent troop #1 into Iraqi territory we would not be in this
mess.

We have to remember they were all hoodwinked by the bumbling,
unintelligent, idiotic, moron who can't find his way through a three
sentence paragraph. It still amazes me how they claim "Bush lied"
but not one of the intelligensia on Capitol Hill saw through it. Mmmmkay.

well, you and others keep forgeting that the very people that voted for this action was already for the removal of saddam long before bush became president. they had the cajones, but why would you need them for a war that you wanted, that congress was not made up of fools.

it pains me to see so many people go about believing this crap about how the dems were hoodwrinked, but then they vote for the same people that was "incompetent" enough not to see through bush's "lies", very sad and illogical.

now, everybody wants to get up and point the finger at people about iraq and the one thing that noone seems to understand is that we are being engaged in iraq and it has nothing to do with the invasion itself. the question of why we went in is not the reason we are facing an insurgency (that has massive support from outside).

we are facing an insurgency because of the various groups (with foreign support) wanting power for themselves and they know that with us there, they can't achieve it. we took out saddam, but we did not take into account the control that would be needed to suppress these groups and we definitely underestimated the foreign support to the insurgency from iran and syria.

so, all this talk about a new "course" is pretty damn silly. it is either you are in or you are out. if you are in, you need to give 100% and bring your enemies to their knees. anything less than that, you might as well go home. don't waste our time and don't waste time trying to "find a way out".

the president was not perfect, but what president has ever been perfect? much less dealing with conflicts? there is nothing wrong with changing plans or strategy, it's part of the deal. but when you look for a way out of a conflict, that's when your policy truly becomes a failure.

it is not a failure yet because the situation is ongoing and can at any moment change, and that is why i laugh my ass off when i keep seeing these headlines about "bush's failed policy", when people should know that it is not a failed policy, due to the fact that we are still in iraq.

do we need a change of strategy? of course we do. but how that gets linked with failed policy is beyond me. this whole thing is starting to get truly ridiculous and politics is still more important than winning conflicts, something i do not see changing in the near future.

[ElHombre]

we are facing an insurgency because of the various groups (with foreign support) wanting power for themselves and they know that with us there, they can't achieve it. we took out saddam, but we did not take into account the control that would be needed to suppress these groups and we definitely underestimated the foreign support to the insurgency from iran and syria.

Don't give me any of that 'we' s***. There were plenty of voices noting the lack of concern the admin was taking towards invading Iraq. It's not the war critics' fault that they were ignored. That's the fault of war supporters like yourself.


so, all this talk about a new "course" is pretty damn silly. it is either you are in or you are out. if you are in, you need to give 100% and bring your enemies to their knees. anything less than that, you might as well go home. don't waste our time and don't waste time trying to "find a way out".

the president was not perfect, but what president has ever been perfect? much less dealing with conflicts? there is nothing wrong with changing plans or strategy, it's part of the deal. but when you look for a way out of a conflict, that's when your policy truly becomes a failure.

If you've stuck your d**k halfway into a blender, no one's going to be impressed by attempts to shove the rest of it in. You just have to face up to the fact that sticking your d**k into a blender was a pretty f***ing stupid idea in the first place, take the bloddy stump out, and go to the hospital.


it is not a failure yet because the situation is ongoing and can at any moment change, and that is why i laugh my ass off when i keep seeing these headlines about "bush's failed policy", when people should know that it is not a failed policy, due to the fact that we are still in iraq.

People with far better judgement than the Bush admin and you have taken a long hard look at the Bush Iraq policy and come to the conclusion that it's a failure. The only difference among them is how long it took them to come to that conclusion.


do we need a change of strategy? of course we do. but how that gets linked with failed policy is beyond me. this whole thing is starting to get truly ridiculous and politics is still more important than winning conflicts, something i do not see changing in the near future.

And what's the first step of 'changing your strategy'? Stop using the one that a proven failure. It's called the First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging.

[bugkill]

Don't give me any of that 'we' s***. There were plenty of voices noting the lack of concern the admin was taking towards invading Iraq. It's not the war critics' fault that they were ignored. That's the fault of war supporters like yourself.



If you've stuck your d**k halfway into a blender, no one's going to be impressed by attempts to shove the rest of it in. You just have to face up to the fact that sticking your d**k into a blender was a pretty f***ing stupid idea in the first place, take the bloddy stump out, and go to the hospital.



People with far better judgement than the Bush admin and you have taken a long hard look at the Bush Iraq policy and come to the conclusion that it's a failure. The only difference among them is how long it took them to come to that conclusion.



And what's the first step of 'changing your strategy'? Stop using the one that a proven failure. It's called the First Rule of Holes: When you're in one, stop digging.


dude, your problem is that you feel that your "better" way is going to come up smelling like roses and you don't have a f**kin' clue what you are talking about. it does not matter how you go about it because you will be engaged by a determined enemy that does not want you to succeed.

as long as you have an enemy, you are going to have the problems that we have now. we won the war with saddam and now other enemies are doing what they can to stop us from being even more successful. it is not about the damn policy and everybody is foolish to believe that.

we are training the iraqi's to take over security, but guess what? it is not f**kin' easy and it can't be done by some dumbass timetable!!! we are trying to build a stable government while under fire and you people feel that there should be a better way to do things and i got news for you, there is not!!!!!!!

the strategy needs to be changed in a way of either being more on the offensive or getting the f**k out!!!! there is nothing else to discuss and there is no other way. the very things that you clowns are crying about is already being done, but you guys feel that it should be done without soldiers getting killed or bombings against the populace, and you are living in a pipe dream if you believe that.

as far as this "we" problem you have, you are exactly right. you are part of the american populace that lives for the politics and not the victory of your country. yes, you hate bush and you disagreed with the war, but guess what? you are not the f**kin' president! you are just some guy posting on a forum.

matter of fact, what have you done in your life that impacts this country? have you served? do you hold public office? do you own a corporation or provide jobs for thousands of americans? tell me, what the f**k have you done to even be heard, especially on this subject?

you get up here and mouth off about the war, but you know nothing about it, only what you see on TV. you have this thought that everything that we do as a country needs to be painless, but i think you only feel that way if it's an republican president calling the shots. i've seen your posts and your posts drip with hatred for bush and i for one don't care for all that crap.

i don't care who is the president (i served under clinton also), if he makes a decision to go to war, then i'm all for success! no matter how i feel about the decision or the man making it. the bottom line is success for my country and that is where "WE" differ!

[a_very_ex_STAB]

dude, your problem is that you feel that your "better" way is going to come up smelling like roses and you don't have a f**kin' clue what you are talking about. it does not matter how you go about it because you will be engaged by a determined enemy that does not want you to succeed.

as long as you have an enemy, you are going to have the problems that we have now. we won the war with saddam and now other enemies are doing what they can to stop us from being even more successful. it is not about the damn policy and everybody is foolish to believe that.

we are training the iraqi's to take over security, but guess what? it is not f**kin' easy and it can't be done by some dumbass timetable!!! we are trying to build a stable government while under fire and you people feel that there should be a better way to do things and i got news for you, there is not!!!!!!!

the strategy needs to be changed in a way of either being more on the offensive or getting the f**k out!!!! there is nothing else to discuss and there is no other way. the very things that you clowns are crying about is already being done, but you guys feel that it should be done without soldiers getting killed or bombings against the populace, and you are living in a pipe dream if you believe that.

as far as this "we" problem you have, you are exactly right. you are part of the american populace that lives for the politics and not the victory of your country. yes, you hate bush and you disagreed with the war, but guess what? you are not the f**kin' president! you are just some guy posting on a forum.

matter of fact, what have you done in your life that impacts this country? have you served? do you hold public office? do you own a corporation or provide jobs for thousands of americans? tell me, what the f**k have you done to even be heard, especially on this subject?

you get up here and mouth off about the war, but you know nothing about it, only what you see on TV. you have this thought that everything that we do as a country needs to be painless, but i think you only feel that way if it's an republican president calling the shots. i've seen your posts and your posts drip with hatred for bush and i for one don't care for all that crap.

i don't care who is the president (i served under clinton also), if he makes a decision to go to war, then i'm all for success! no matter how i feel about the decision or the man making it. the bottom line is success for my country and that is where "WE" differ!

Whatever
The stop digging when you're in a hole thing still applies.
Invading Iraq was the biggest fcuking disaster imaginable in relation to trying to achieve the success you say you desire in the War on Terror.
If you want success then it's time to leave, regroup, rethink and try other ways of countering Al Qaeda through law enforcement, diplomatic, financial, and religious educational routes (and/or by military action where necessary).

[dacanadianbomb]

It is most definately not time to leave.
Its time to actually re-affirm the mission, and then send in another 20k+ troops.
Say listen people, we made a mistake, but we have to make this right.And its going to take years to get this cleaned up and its going to cost billions of dollars,and thats the fact.

Pulling back and then trying it with the nice nice diplomatic thing is about the last option the US has.
And stop this feel good " give back control" thing, the Iraqi's have not slaughtered enough fathers,wifes,brothers,sisters, children to figure out they dont want it anymore.They as a big picture,are not mature enough to handle themselves.What was everyone thinking that would happen after toppling a dictator who was in charge for what, 20 years ?
Unless you want to spit on the grave of those who went there and died doing their job,just to have those who sent them there, run away again.

They already did that to 58,000 Soldiers 30 years ago.

[bugkill]

Whatever
The stop digging when you're in a hole thing still applies.
Invading Iraq was the biggest fcuking disaster imaginable in relation to trying to achieve the success you say you desire in the War on Terror.
If you want success then it's time to leave, regroup, rethink and try other ways of countering Al Qaeda through law enforcement, diplomatic, financial, and religious educational routes (and/or by military action where necessary).

the problem is bigger than Al Qaeda and iraq was a thorn in our side long before 9/11. not all threats have to reach your border, especially when we have interests in the middle east that could be targeted and cause serious problems back home. we have numerous enemies over there (including the ones that claim to be our friends) and the move into iraq was a strategic one to pressure iran and syria.

the things you propose in order to battle Al Qaeda is exactly what we did in the 90's and i should not have to tell you the end result. they were at "war" with us and we treated them like a nuisance, a little "law enforcement" problem. that way of thinking had allowed them to slowly gather support throughout the middle east and after each little success, with no real response from us, they got even bolder (9/11).

you and others consider iraq a disaster because that is all you are getting forced feed by the media and you don't understand that this is a low intensity conflict, very low. everybody is doing all this talking about the force being too thin and all that crap, but when you take a hard look at what the military has done to keep combat experienced soldiers in their ranks, you would think differently. most of the incentives were being spent on new recruits and many career soldiers were not being offered not nearly as much as you would think to stay in.

you obvious feel that iraq is a disaster and i'm of the belief that it is in a transition. you are witnessing the first big change in world affairs for our generation. it is scary and worrisome, but is not the first time to have this happened. this thing in iraq needs to happen and it really does not matter if iraq becomes split, just as long we have a "presence" there is what counts (within iraq, not kuwait), but you shoot for the best result and that would have been a centralized government that shared our interests.

the real key is going to be afghanistan and people forget that we have a very good base of operations there and the country is sparsely populated, which plays to our advantage. we will still have a presence on iran's border and they are the ones that we are really after because they pose the greatest threat to our interests in the region.

like i said before, we are way past 9/11 and now we are dealing with threats to our national interests before they become a reality. it is no longer about that raghead sitting in a mudhut along the pakistani border, it has moved way beyond that.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

the problem is bigger than Al Qaeda and iraq was a thorn in our side long before 9/11. not all threats have to reach your border, especially when we have interests in the middle east that could be targeted and cause serious problems back home. we have numerous enemies over there (including the ones that claim to be our friends) and the move into iraq was a strategic one to pressure iran and syria.

the things you propose in order to battle Al Qaeda is exactly what we did in the 90's and i should not have to tell you the end result. they were at "war" with us and we treated them like nuisance, a little "law enforcement" problem. that way of thinking had allowed them to slowly gather support throughout the middle east and after each little success, with no real response from us, they got even bolder (9/11).

you and others consider iraq a disaster because that is all you are getting forced feed by the media and you don't understand that this is a low intensity conflict, very low. everybody is doing all this talking about the force being too thin and all that crap, but when you take a hard look at what the military has done to keep combat experienced soldiers in their ranks, you would think differently. most of the incentives were being spent on new recruits and many career soldiers were not being offered not nearly as much as you would think to stay in.

you obvious feel that iraq is a disaster and i'm of the belief that it is in a transition. you are witnessing the first big change in world affairs for our generation. it is scary and worrisome, but is not the first time to have this happened. this thing in iraq needs to happen and it really does not matter if iraq becomes split, just as long we have a "presence" there is what counts (within iraq, not kuwait), but you shoot for the best result and that would have been a centralized government that shared our interests.

the real key is going to be afghanistan and people forget that we have a very good base of operations there and the country is sparely populated, which plays to our advantage. we will still have a presence on iran's border and they are the ones that we are really after because they pose the greatest threat to our interests in the region.

like i said before, we are way past 9/11 and now we are dealing with threats to our national interests before they become a reality. it is no longer about that raghead sitting in a mudhut along the pakistani border, it has moved way beyond that.

That's a very interesting analysis. It's not the first big geopolitical change for my generation though. I was born just after the Cuban missile crisis so things have changed quite a lot in my lifetime and in the country I come from terrorism didn't start in September 2001.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the presence in Iraq pressuring Iran and Syria. As far as I can see from my chairborne perspective Iran has been the only winner from the current debacle. Syria may well be under pressure but I think it's position has been strengthened since the events in Lebanon in the summer.

[bugkill]

That's a very interesting analysis. It's not the first big geopolitical change for my generation though. I was born just after the Cuban missile crisis so things have changed quite a lot in my lifetime and in the country I come from terrorism didn't start in September 2001.

I'm going to have to disagree with you about the presence in Iraq pressuring Iran and Syria. As far as I can see from my chairborne perspective Iran has been the only winner from the current debacle. Syria may well be under pressure but I think it's position has been strengthened since the events in Lebanon in the summer.

well, iran is trying to make itself a winner in iraq, it was not handed to them by us going in there. they are doing covert ops in iraq and are fully supporting shiite insurgent groups, the attacks being done is not by accident or that the "iraqi" people want us out. they fully understand what is at stake and they are doing what they can to ensure that we do not succeed. think about it, would you want a country that considers you part of the "axis of evil", to be parked on both sides of your border, especially after he destroyed one of your bitter enemies in less than a month?

i try to tell people that the war in iraq was over in 2003 and now we are in the middle of an "islamic cold war". it is very real and it will not go away, even if we leave iraq. we have way too much in stake in the middle east, not just iraq.

the things that affect those countries (our allies), can also affect us, and that there lies the problem. we are unfortunately tied to the middle east and our economy will suffer a great deal if certain countries spread their influence or threaten our allies.

i wish we had no ties to the middle east and then they can kill each other all they want, but we don't have that luxury. i wish that there was peace and that i would'nt have to go to a f**kin' war, but that is the cards that i've been dealt.

the groundwork for iraq was being prepped for over a decade (no fly zones and constant troop rotations to kuwait for "training") and the removal of saddam was going to happen no matter who was president (al gore definitely would have went), but 9/11 pushed the date up a bit.

the actions of one man (saddam) has led to this chain of events that are all tied together. if he had not attacked kuwait, we would not have been in the middle east like we have been since the early 90's. then Al Qaeda would not be leading it's crusade to get us out of saudi arabia and the middle east altogether, which led to 9/11.

pretty strange when you look back in the past and see how so many events have triggered so many things that is going on now.

[Hiroshima]

Iraq was a thorn in our side? Why wasn't I informed?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

the actions of one man (saddam) has led to this chain of events that are all tied together. if he had not attacked kuwait, we would not have been in the middle east like we have been since the early 90's. then Al Qaeda would not be leading it's crusade to get us out of saudi arabia and the middle east altogether, which led to 9/11.

pretty strange when you look back in the past and see how so many events have triggered so many things that is going on now.

I certainly agree with you there.
Maybe if Saddam had not been so stupid in invading Kuwait back in 1990 we would now be working with him against Al Qaeda!

[ElHombre]

Here we go again...


well, iran is trying to make itself a winner in iraq, it was not handed to them by us going in there. By destabilizing Iraq, Iran won. Guess who destabilized Iraq? Us. they are doing covert ops in iraq and are fully supporting shiite insurgent groups, the attacks being done is not by accident or that the "iraqi" people want us out. Which Shiite groups are you talking about? Sadr's group is gets all the support it needs from Iraqis. The SCIRI folks get their help from Iran, so why the US is asking for their help to sideline Sadr is something of a mysterythey fully understand what is at stake and they are doing what they can to ensure that we do not succeed. think about it, would you want a country that considers you part of the "axis of evil", to be parked on both sides of your border, especially after he destroyed one of your bitter enemies in less than a month? What a grasp of strategy you have! To have figured this out after all this time. It's like you actually heeded the warnings before the invasion.

i try to tell people that the war in iraq was over in 2003 and now we are in the middle of an "islamic cold war". it is very real and it will not go away, even if we leave iraq. we have way too much in stake in the middle east, not just iraq. And staying in Iraq is eroding our ability to do anything about the ME.

the things that affect those countries (our allies), can also affect us, and that there lies the problem. we are unfortunately tied to the middle east and our economy will suffer a great deal if certain countries spread their influence or threaten our allies.

i wish we had no ties to the middle east and then they can kill each other all they want, but we don't have that luxury. i wish that there was peace and that i would'nt have to go to a f**kin' war, but that is the cards that i've been dealt. That's when you demand a new hand from the dealer

the groundwork for iraq was being prepped for over a decade (no fly zones and constant troop rotations to kuwait for "training") and the removal of saddam was going to happen no matter who was president (al gore definitely would have went), but 9/11 pushed the date up a bit. No one had any plans for removing SH. He was going to wither on the vine and that's what he was doing.

the actions of one man (saddam) has led to this chain of events that are all tied together. if he had not attacked kuwait, we would not have been in the middle east like we have been since the early 90's. then Al Qaeda would not be leading it's crusade to get us out of saudi arabia and the middle east altogether, which led to 9/11. So you're blaming the snowflake for the avalanche?

pretty strange when you look back in the past and see how so many events have triggered so many things that is going on now. Which is why that saying about learning from history was invented.

[XShipRider]

well, you and others keep forgeting that the very people that voted for this action was already for the removal of saddam long before bush became president. they had the cajones, but why would you need them for a war that you wanted, that congress was not made up of fools.

Bug', I didn't forget. I was making a point using the very people who
voted for the war but are now against it. They haven't offered up so
much as a single idea on how to conduct the evolving enemy since the
fall of Saddam. But they, like me, can watch from afar and offer up
plenty of criticism of what not to do. Like me, they're usually wrong.
I, like most of them, have never been there (or in conflict). This makes
our armchair analysis flawed from the start.



it pains me to see so many people go about believing this crap about how the dems were hoodwrinked, but then they vote for the same people that was "incompetent" enough not to see through bush's "lies", very sad and illogical.

My last paragraph was pure unadulterated sarcasm. It was aimed at those
who call Bush an idiot but claim to have been "misled."



now, everybody wants to get up and point the finger at people about iraq and the one thing that noone seems to understand is that we are being engaged in iraq and it has nothing to do with the invasion itself. the question of why we went in is not the reason we are facing an insurgency (that has massive support from outside).

we are facing an insurgency because of the various groups (with foreign support) wanting power for themselves and they know that with us there, they can't achieve it. we took out saddam, but we did not take into account the control that would be needed to suppress these groups and we definitely underestimated the foreign support to the insurgency from iran and syria.

I understand that. We didn't close the borders which allowed insurgency
to flourish. I also understand there are warring factions who were already
within the borders. I'm in the camp of Colin Powell -- We broke it, we own
it. We cannot simply move on as if everything is fine and good, leaving it
to the Iranis, Syrians, Kurds and Turks to claim or fight over.

Hell, we can't close our own porous borders. What makes us think we can
close Iraq?



so, all this talk about a new "course" is pretty damn silly. it is either you are in or you are out. if you are in, you need to give 100% and bring your enemies to their knees. anything less than that, you might as well go home. don't waste our time and don't waste time trying to "find a way out".


True, that's the way to fight a war. But unfortunately the tide of
support is ebbing because Americans are growing weary. We're lucky,
with our infinitesimal attention spans, support lasted this long.



the president was not perfect, but what president has ever been perfect? much less dealing with conflicts? there is nothing wrong with changing plans or strategy, it's part of the deal. but when you look for a way out of a conflict, that's when your policy truly becomes a failure.

it is not a failure yet because the situation is ongoing and can at any moment change, and that is why i laugh my ass off when i keep seeing these headlines about "bush's failed policy", when people should know that it is not a failed policy, due to the fact that we are still in iraq.
As I said, we broke it, we own it. We need to fix the problems before
summarily pulling out. Do we need to talk to Syria and Iran? Probably.
Then again, I'm in the camp that says "keep your friends close and your
enemies closer." We should have been talking to Iran since shortly after
the hostages were returned. Dialogue never hurts in the political arena.

We fought an entire "war" without major military conflict, called the Cold
War. All through that debacle we talked to our so-called enemy, the
USSR. Dialogue went a long way to staving off many, now known,
incidents which could have blown up, quite literally, in our faces.



do we need a change of strategy? of course we do. but how that gets linked with failed policy is beyond me. this whole thing is starting to get truly ridiculous and politics is still more important than winning conflicts, something i do not see changing in the near future.
Agreed. Maybe the next war will be better thought out from the get-go.
Terrorism, insurrection and insurgency are the tools of out-of-power
groups. We have to understand this is not a phenomenon which will
go away once we finally leave the Middle East.

[bugkill]

Here we go again...


dude, you have no clue what you are talking about. the sanctions against saddam were not going to last forever and his regime (with his sons) were not going to be removed, and that is the straight facts.

your point about there were no plans for an invasion is simply dumb. the "no-fly" zones and our constant troop rotations were not just for protecting kuwait, it was a staging area for possible invasion if saddam crossed the line again.

we "prepped" the battlefield for over a decade and all the soldiers knew that the training we were doing over there was preperation for a possible invasion because it was always on the table. you do remember that gulf war 1 ended with a cease-fire, not total US victory over iraq.

i'm not even going to waste my time with your other points because i have already stated what i needed to state. you have your opinion and i have mine, simple as that. the one last thing i will discuss is your "snowflake" statement.

i don't see where you can take that statement and try to use it as me "blaming" saddam for the iraq invasion. the fact of the matter is that had saddam not invaded kuwait, the world would be very different. i don't know if you were around when that happened, but it was a big event in world history and i'm not talking about the gulf war itself.

OBL became what he is today because of the invasion by saddam and the decision by saudi arabia to have us defend them and not his group of fighters. all this crap that we are dealing with is born out of the fact that saddam attacked a close ally to our country, that is a FACT.

the decision to invade iraq is the president's decision. he lives and dies with that decision. he has never ducked from it and he still stands by his convictions. the way it has been handled is suspect, but you can always change your strategy and implement changes, and it may be the type of change you and other americans may not like.

truth be told, the american people don't win wars, but they can sure lose them.

[ElHombre]

Let's just skip to this...


the decision to invade iraq is the president's decision. he lives and dies with that decision. he has never ducked from it and he still stands by his convictions. the way it has been handled is suspect, but you can always change your strategy and implement changes, and it may be the type of change you and other americans may not like.

truth be told, the american people don't win wars, but they can sure lose them.

Yes, Bush has stood by what he thinks are his 'convictions' And when the evidence showed up that those convictions didn't match the cold, hard facts, he stuck by his 'convictions' and now 3,000 US troops are dead thanks to Bush's 'convictions'. 'But he can always change his strategy', you say. What part of his 'stay the course' statement didn't you understand? Bush cannot be relied upon to recognize, let alone excercise, good judgement. Americans realize that now. The Iraq War has been lost and Americans don't want the price tag for this blunder to be any higher.

[annihilation]

the decision to invade iraq is the president's decision. he lives and dies with that decision. he has never ducked from it and he still stands by his convictions. the way it has been handled is suspect, but you can always change your strategy and implement changes, and it may be the type of change you and other americans may not like.



To bad he is not the one dying for his decisions other people are.

[mailmannz]

truth be told, the american people don't win wars, but they can sure lose them.

ElH is the perfect example of your statement.

Someone who would rather lose a war than win it because of who is in charge.

Bugkill, I think you are banging your head against a brickwall with ElH because reqardless of how much you try to reason his hatred for Bush and America is so strong that he will ignore everything you say and continue to argue on regardless.

Mailman

[XShipRider]

To bad he is not the one dying for his decisions other people are.

That's unfair. This applies to any national leader. Roosevelt didn't seem to have a problem sleeping while people died by the millions. No, I'm not comparing the wars, just war in general.

As Studs Terkel named it, The Good War. What a poor moniker for such a brutal time in our history.

Below I am comparing war strategy.



Yes, Bush has stood by what he thinks are his 'convictions' And when the evidence showed up that those convictions didn't match the cold, hard facts, he stuck by his 'convictions' and now 3,000 US troops are dead thanks to Bush's 'convictions'. 'But he can always change his strategy', you say. What part of his 'stay the course' statement didn't you understand? Bush cannot be relied upon to recognize, let alone excercise, good judgement. Americans realize that now. The Iraq War has been lost and Americans don't want the price tag for this blunder to be any higher.

It's a known fact Roosevelt collaborated with Churchill to fight the European war first and the Pacific war second. How many Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Philippinos, Tagalogs, New Zealanders, Chinese, Burmese, etc*., died because of this "stay the course" strategy? Roosevelt and Churchill certainly "stayed the course" knowing full well their decision was killing Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen in another theater. But those are the decisions a President has to make.

I do think Bush 'stayed' too long. I do think we did not commit enough forces to crush the enemy and hold the lines. Then again, I'm doing the armchair thing from afar with no first-hand knowledge of the theater in question. My take on the war, like so many on this board, is from the standpoint of ignorance.

[annihilation]

That's unfair. This applies to any national leader. Roosevelt didn't seem to have a problem sleeping while people died by the millions. No, I'm not comparing the wars, just war in general.

I'll give you that



It's a known fact Roosevelt collaborated with Churchill to fight the European war first and the Pacific war second. How many Americans, British, Canadians, Aussies, Philippinos, Tagalogs, New Zealanders, Chinese, Burmese, etc*., died because of this "stay the course" strategy? Roosevelt and Churchill certainly "stayed the course" knowing full well their decision was killing Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen in another theater. But those are the decisions a President has to make.

I do think Bush 'stayed' too long. I do think we did not commit enough forces to crush the enemy and hold the lines. Then again, I'm doing the armchair thing from afar with no first-hand knowledge of the theater in question. My take on the war, like so many on this board, is from the standpoint of ignorance.

Well the same can be said with bush and his three front war or four or what ever number there is. We have afghan front, the Iraq front, the real war on terror front, and you can then almost incude Iran and NK dipolomatic front. How many of those fronts have beem sacrificied and how many men have been killed because we have focused so much attention and resources into the Iraqi front?

[ElHombre]

ElH is the perfect example of your statement.

Someone who would rather lose a war than win it because of who is in charge.

So now it's my fault that we're losing? The power I must have! The ability for a people who haven't a single decision-making position to be able to set US policy! :lol:

We've not lost the war because Americans are no longer supporting it. We've lost because the US, being led by an incompetent group of immature, glory-hungry, violent, unscroupulous, corrupt individuals taking advantage of a national tragedy whose happening was a result of their failures, started a war whose goals could not be achieved without direct help from the Almighty. That's not opinion, that's fact. The only question remaining are how many troops have to die so that those ldeaderd won't have to admit their mistake.

[annihilation]

ElH is the perfect example of your statement.

Someone who would rather lose a war than win it because of who is in charge.

Bugkill, I think you are banging your head against a brickwall with ElH because reqardless of how much you try to reason his hatred for Bush and America is so strong that he will ignore everything you say and continue to argue on regardless.

Mailman

Why do you equate hate for bush as hate for america? I hate bush but I love my country. I would love to be wrong with bush and his "master plan". I would love to see us win in Iraq and things get better. But I also see reality and reality is that this man, bush, what ever he touches corrupts and fails.

[ElHombre]

Why does [Mailman] equate hate for bush as hate for america?

Because he can't accept the fact that the war critics have been right all along. Don't ask me why. I don't believe that he made any of the decisions, so it's a loss as to why he won't let the Iraq War go. I really wonder what has to happen before the remaining war supporters see cold reason (and who has to pay the price).

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Because he can't accept the fact that the war critics have been right all along. Don't ask me why. I don't believe that he made any of the decisions, so it's a loss as to why he won't let the Iraq War go. I really wonder what has to happen before the remaining war supporters see cold reason (and who has to pay the price).


Yup they just cannot accept they were wrong and we were right all along.