 |
|
Guynemer
|
|
Can we stop saying that "going to Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11"?
It had EVERYTHING to do with 9/11. Not because Saddam had anything to do with the terrorist attacks, but because that is exactly how the Iraq war was sold to the public. The administration, all the way to the top, relentlessly (and falsely) linked Iraq with Al Queda, Saddam with Osama.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned, talk is cheap (Rumsfeld's talk - not trying to diss you, at least you try and listen). The man is part of a White House that learned all the wrong lessons from the Clinton White House, spin is their middle name. While Rumsfeld claims he is for the soldier, he is pushing a light mobile force that is GUARANTEED to take higher casualties, plus an abomination of an AFV, the Stryker. Here is a link to his new rapid deployment unit.
http://www.geocities.com/wheeledibct/
It's why I keep comparing him to that moron McNamara. He knows his vision for a new army is right, and the hell with the pros who know better. By the way, slide 5 has some info on the Stryker - I've collected a bunch, it's all the turkey its opponents claim, and more. Reference the link's claims on the automation problems the army is having, we get Government Computer News where I work, and what the fellow in the article claims pretty much matches what I've been reading, though project problems are put more politely in official organs.
I guess that's why Rumsfeld is for the infrantyman. He knows they are going to have to take up the slack, and take the casualties, so he can have a cheap intervention force.   I want us to have a world class military, paid for on delivery (no deficits). |
Shawn, the Stryker has yet to be a problem. It is only a potential problem. However, Rumsfeld's vision has won two wars in record time and with very few casualties. As they say, there is no substitute for victory.
In retrospect, building up our forces to approximate 300,000 for the invasion of Iraq would've been a huge mistake because that would've placed us into the summer months for the invasion and would've also been completely and totally unnecessary.
As to procurement issues, the Stryker appears to be a modern version of the air mobile force that was predominate during the McNamara régime in Vietnam. This no question in my mind that air mobile concept killed a lot of American troops. There seems to be no substitute for taking holding ground with armor.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Ned, your missing my point. Rumsfeld has not won two conflicts. In both conflicts after the major field operations against organized forces were won, we did not have sufficient occupation forces - MP's, civilian liason, rebuilding, etc. to win the peace. We do not have the forces to make sure that western style individual rights democracy will occur in either country. In fact, it looks extremely likely in both cases that Sharia will be ensconced in law, and since in both countries you have groups with definitive differences in what exactly constitutes "kosher" Sharia (I just couldn't resist) the outlook for these so-called democracies loore like Cromwell's England.
In fact, and this goes back to the 80's, and both Mssrs. Gore and Gingritch buy into this one as well as Clinton and the Republican leadership, our contracting out suppport services has made life miserable for our GI's in Iraq, and made rebuilding a much larger mess than Germany or Japan. It seems that the employees of civilian contractors don't like to get shot at (low wage, no life insurance, low or no benefits, well duh), so the work is being done on a piecemeal basis, and often not being done nearly as fast as the older army support services did. It's why we've had soldiers in Iraq without running water or showers for almost a year, and substandard food. Remember, you get what you pay for.
Ned, did you go through the slide show? Go through that link. We can start a thread on the reoganization, instead of half-hijacking this one.  Of course the entire issue of Iraq, Bush, terrorism, Rumsfeld et al is complex, and is interconnected, which is why we keep returning to all these interrelated issues.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:33
|
|
Perhaps not, PLATO, but I'm quite sure that the folks who elect the president, senators, representatives, et al., would rather have sources of information that doesn't necessarily originate strictly from those who are a part of the government, either through appointment or by being a career bureaucrat. (That was a run-on sentence.) Bush may be comfortable receiving information that way, but I wouldn't be. (Heh. I'm sure Karl Rove keeps his finger on the pulse of what's appearing in the media, anyway, and relays it to Bush.)
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PLATO
I am just saying that Newspaper articles don't have to be in the mix to make national policy. It is quite alright for the President to make decisions without reading the paper! |
Or the TV, or Radio, or.......
quote:
Given the partisan battles of Washington, it is imperitive for a sitting President to have political loyalty. |
And people loyal to him are less likely to challenge him intellectually, tell him he might be wrong, tell him things he does not want to hear without sugar coating them...
quote:
Further to the crux of the matter...Leading up to the war there was much discussion on the different points of view and even infighting in the cabinet. Bush was obviously witness to some strong cases both ways. He made a decision...that is what we hired him to do. Just because you disagree with the decision does not mean that he should act on the opinion of NYT or WSJ or USA Today, or any other publication. |
Who is talking about paper's opinions? Unless you see every article as a mini-oped, most of what reporters do is report-ie, give you information. There was infighting in the amdin. about iraq- thankfully one major cabinet member was not of the same mind as others- but what about national policy? Tax policy? What about the Iraq aftermath? Again, this is a guy limiting his sources of information with the naive view that by doing so he gets the best information", which is a very naive view.
quote:
Once again I will say...If you don't like Bush, then you have the right to fire him in November. Most polls say that the majority of people will extend his contract another 4 years. Perhaps they all don't read the paper eithier?? Or maybe they just make their own decisions...Like Bush did. |
 I mean, really......
You continue to think I want the president to base his policy on edtorials..well, as I said above, that is not the point, and it is not O'Neills point either-O'Neills point though is extremely valid and I do hope the press makes it public so that the public will have all the information they need to chose the president: Decisions are based on what information one makes. It is utterly valid to question the ability of someone who chooses to limit his sources on information without logical reason (perhaps simply out of itellectual lazyness or closemindedness) to make the most and best informed decisions (because the guy purposelly makes himself NOT the best informed).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
This debate seems to miss something though. Mr. Bush is, by his own admission, a born-again Christian. He is also sure of his righteousness. Any person with that paradigm is going to parse everything he gets into a good-evil us-them world view, it's appears to be almost inevitable from real world cases (and definitely the case on Bush - ask diplomats how much damage his Axis of Evil speech did). This is how Bush can FEEL he is helping make the world safer by eliminating Sadam, instead of dealing with the Wahabe extremists and Saudi Arabia exporting it through funding Madrasses that push this most intolerant form of Islam. It's how he can go after Saddam, when North Korea has shot down jumbo jets full of civilians, kidnapped civilians off beaches, and exported missle/nuclear technology world wide. There is no finesse in his world view, he has PRINCIPLES. The man is as big a fool as Jimmy Carter, but much more dangerous.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
TCO, your statement about wars, and success, only applies to wars fought in self-defense, i.e. Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. The situation with Iraq is substantially different. Once war becomes an instrument of policy, then you have to guage it's success on the final result. Note I am using success instead of victory. I still insist that even with wars of defense the end result is critical, because even after you "defeat" the enemy, you want do not what them to become an even greater threat in the future. That is why WW1 was a failure, while WW2 was a success. Even then, WW2 was only a qualified success, because people forgot the threat assessments prior to the war concerning Stalinism, and millions of people paid for that error.
Let's evaluate Iraq. If Bush's policy was regime change, without paying any attention to what resulted afterwards, then the man is a fool and learned nothing from history. If the policy was to "create a democratic government," then his administration is full of ignoramuses. In the Mideast you can have a "democratic" theocracy that is more dangerous to US interests than a monster like Saddam, fomenting terrorism and instability in surrounding areas necessary to US economic interests - world oil markets anyone?
If the policy is to create a stable democratic government friendly to US interests, the final result is still in serious doubt. Look at the recent Shia rioting in the south, fomented by that 29 year old cleric whose name escapes me. If this is the policy of the Bush adminstration, then they have taken many foolish steps, engaged in counter-productive activity, and overall the conditions to achieve this result are deteriorating. Now if the policy was regime change, coupled with a domestic policy distractor, than he has been successful. There is an excellent chance however that the costs of that policy, especially ignoring the very real possibility of a Shia theocracy in Iraq with the resulting instability as the Suni and Kurds engage in an armed resistance, will harm the long-term interests of the US and cause an increase in terror recruiting against us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
TCO, that would be such a short-sited, historically ignorant viewpoint that I would hope the leader of the world's last military superpower (for now) would understand that the consequences of such a goal could make matters even worse. If Bush had such a goal, with a vague plan for democracy afterwards, I repeat, the man is a fool. The consequences of it may increase terrorism, and make the Middle East less stable - an armed Kurdish resistance (they made off with the heavy weapons abandoned by the Iraqi army) in the North, Turkey intervening because of this, Iran involved in support of the Shia government, Suni's coming to the aid of their embattled brethren in the center, and extremists using it as a club to recruit terrorists because "it's all the fault of the Great Satan." What a successful undertaking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
NeOmega
|
 |
Play Pentagenesis Beta!
Feb 2002
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
You have come up with an entirely new definition for winning a war if you mean changing the society to love the American way. This is a nobe goal and we will see how it plays out. But the wars were won. The countires previous leaders were ousted. And that has had a noticeable effect on other dictators. And this has value in and of itself. Even if the countries devolve into statelessness (and I hope they do not), there is a defintie benefit inshowing dictators that there is a stick for them when they cross us. |
I haven't come up with a new definition.... the Iraqi insurgents have. And you are a blind man if you think the war in Iraq is over. It has just begun.
As far as your two-bit psychology is concerned:
1) I am an american, hard to envy myself, aye?
2) I care not only about American casualties, but also Iraqi casualties, in fact, all people who have died in this war are a tragedy in my eyes.
RE: Rummy
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
This think tank's members include Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, **** Cheney just to name a few.
American World Domination is in their minds justified, because America is so darn good, or to quote the website:
quote:
The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership
|
Hell yeah Bush wanted to invade Iraq since the day he took office, look at who he chose for his cabinent! Old Gulf War people, and **** Cheny as VP. It was so obvious, yet even I was naive enough to miss it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2004 14:00
|