AnimationNation Forum

AnimationNation


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» AnimationNation   » SideTopics   » You know the situation is bad when...

   
Author Topic: You know the situation is bad when...
Nedlaw
Member
Member # 3052

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nedlaw   Email Nedlaw         Edit/Delete Post 
...even Republicans admit it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-09-15-sens-iraq_x.htm

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Some of this has already been addressed by the administration, including Colin Powell on Meet the Press.

"Of $13 billion pledged by other countries to aid Iraq's reconstruction, only $1.2 billion has been spent."

The response here is totally viable: it hasn't been that long - why would we spend all of it immediately? That would be expensive, irresponsible, wasteful, and would not be used most effectively to just poor the money in. Iraq's reconstruction isn't finished - yet already 1.2 billion has been spent. The criticism here is a little trite.
The inference is that we're missusing that money, rather than using it responsibly.

There are plenty of issues in Iraq that aren't perfect. Many were mistakes, or unforseen problems. A difficult task being difficult? No way! Incompetence is a bit absurd... and claims that we're not winning the war over there aren't constructive (and are far fetched at best).

It will get worse before it gets better though. We're fighting terrorists, not marshmellow men in the land of cotton candy. We're trying to rebuild a nation - only a house of cards pops up over night.

Real incompetence is this: claiming the war costs too much, and then complain that not all the allotted money has been spent yet (so we have to allott and spend more, I guess?). Wanting the President to both back down, and step up at the same time.

This is a complex issue - and in any complex issue - there are going to be plenty of areas worth of criticism. Its not worth losing the big picture over, though.

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
You're not fighting terrorists, you're building a democracy and dealing with people who object to the real or percieved occupation of their land (Ie rebels insurgants whatever you want to call them). This is a huge issue because the way to fight the insurgancy in Iraq is to stabalize the region and get people working. This is the big one...

"• The administration has created only 110,000 jobs for Iraqis, leaving a pool of unemployed young men, many of whom have become willing recruits for insurgents. The new reallocation is intended to provide 800,000 jobs, but many are short term, some for as little as one month."

Nothing spells trouble more than lots of young poor unemployed men. Full of spit and testoterone. Believe me I want the US to succeed in Iraq right now. But stating things aren't going well is not counter productive when they aren't... and that you could take a look at what you're doing wrong and take the appropriate steps to make changes.

IP: Logged
Nedlaw
Member
Member # 3052

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nedlaw   Email Nedlaw         Edit/Delete Post 
and today:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/16/us.iraq.ap/index.html


CC, are you for real?!? It truly baffles me that some people are still convinced of this war. I guess W is just a damn good liar. I would highly encourage all of you to send articles like these around to all friends and family members who believe Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq. We can make a difference in November if we increase awareness now.

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 10 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld confuses Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden at a press conference last week...twice.

quote:
From http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6207916

"The leader of the opposition Northern Alliance, Masood, lay dead, his murder ordered by Saddam Hussein, by Osama bin Laden, Taliban's co-conspirator," Rumsfeld said.

...

"Saddam Hussein, if he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001," Rumsfeld said.

I saw the video clips of this on the Daily Show last night. My husband almost fell off the couch, he was laughing so hard. Catch the repeat tonight at 7PM, if you can.

[funny]

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
MICROPHONE JONEZ
Member
Member # 1918

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MICROPHONE JONEZ           Edit/Delete Post 
In complete seriousness, I would really like to hear what CC would list as being better in America and abroad than it was 4 years ago. I am totally astounded by why seemingly intellegent people are voting for Bush this year. I didn't care one way or another in 2000- George W. made me into a liberal.

Here's the one thing I will predict he says: we caught Saddam. I'll ignore all of the cost and justification issues, and allow that one 'gimme.' But seriously, I can't think of ONE other thing.

This isn't a challenge to shift blame onto Clinton- I just want to hear of positive things Bush has accomplished as 'President.' I've never seen an incumbent so reliant on attack ads, rather than showcasing his accomplishments in an election year.

So school me. Educate me. This is an honest call for the opposing point of view.

IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
In 2000, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, letting al-Quaeda run free, stoning women to death for alleged adultery, etc. Hussein ruled Iraq, butchering and raping at will. Libya was developing nuclear weapons.

Today, Afghanistan is about to have elections, with women actually having rights again and the Taliban fleeing into the hills of the Hindu Kush. Hussein is in jail, his two psychopathic sons dead. Libya has revealed its nuclear programs and is opening up to the world. Iraq is moving towards a representative democracy, though the Sunni Triangle is obviously very messy (of course, the north is very stable, and the south is pretty stable, too). Iran, though, is now encircled, and I can count on Bush to be tougher with them than Kerry.

Reform is actually being discussed in the places like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Egypt - this was not so in 2000 - there's actual hope for the Mideast. Syria's scared, which is good.

I think Bush's foreign policy is on the right track. The spreading of liberty is underway, and that can only be good.

IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
And the majority of the al-Quaeda leadership has been killed or caught, which is, obviously huge.
IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
And the Bush Administration is the ONLY government making any noise about the genocide going on in Sudan (where, in case anyone wasn't paying attention, the Sudanese and SYrian armies, in joint exercises, tested chemical weapons on the civilian population there). The French, naturally, are too concerned about their oil businesses there to give a damn.
IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
Worth reading:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17390

And before CC and Noog, et al try to throw blame on Clintion, that is addressed.

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
Noogenstein, George W. Bush did not get elected in 2000 because he promised to free the Taliban-oppressed women, nor because he promised to overthrow Saddam. George W. Bush was against "nation building" when he ran for president in 2000.

We did not invade Afghanistan to improve the lives of its people. If it was for charity alone, the United States and/or U.N. would have invaded Afghanistan long ago -- the horrible lives of the Afghani people under the Taliban was no secret to the rest of the world. We invaded Afghanistan for necessary self-defense after 9/11.

Note that America had the opportunity to overthrow Saddam over ten years ago, if we had taken the first Gulf War further and risked more American lives. George Bush, Sr. chose not to do so. Considering what happened when Saddam was removed, I wonder if the older Bush wasn't right in his decision back then.

---

Good things G.W. Bush has done...hm.

I shouldn't make Coffee Cat's case for him, because he deserves to state his own case.

I don't care for Bush or his administration. The Iraq war still doesn't seem wise to me. But, there's one thing that he signed last December that might benefit me and other 3D artists I know: health savings accounts.

Right now most of the 3D folks I know go without health insurance coverage, because they don't think they can afford it. Right now I'm looking for health insurance. I have gone without health insurance coverage since my COBRA ran out in November 2002, and I figure any coverage beats no safety net.

After looking into different options, an HSA seemed like the best fit for my particular situation. I'm relatively young and healthy, and I don't expect any major medical expenses anytime soon. Since 1999 I've had good times and tough times. During the good times, I could invest in an HSA. During the tough times, the cost of HSA-compatible insurance won't bleed me dry. As long as I have enough in my HSA to meet my deductible, I'm covered.

Least, that's how I hope it'll work. First I have to get the HSA-compatible health insurance. Maybe Blue Shield will accept my application, maybe they won't. Then, I have to make sure my HSA has enough $$$ in it to cover the medical expenses that I might incur before the health insurance kicks in.

It's not perfect. It won't help people who can't afford either the insurance or the money that needs to annually go into the HSA. It can also be abused as a tax shelter. Some folks worry that replacing the more restictive Archer Medical Savings Accounts with HSAs threatens our current health care system.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't. We'll see.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
I know, Jennifer, that's one of the major reasons why I voted for Gore in 2000, because Bush was against nation-building. But since September 11th, things have changed. And I don't care WHY Bush defeated the Taliban or defeated Hussein. The world is a better place with these monsters gone.

I agree with you on the HSA, too - that's one of the things I liked about Bush's convention speech - he actually talked about some IDEAS and POLICIES he would pursue instead of rehashing irrelevant events from 35 years ago. I really liked his concept of an ownership society and think it could make a lot of sense.

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And I don't care WHY Bush defeated the Taliban or defeated Hussein. The world is a better place with these monsters gone
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement. BUT, and I've got a BIG butt (ask anyone), this wasn't why he said we were going into Iraq (I could've lived with that more) and he hasn't a clue what to do now.
And in the process he has alienated us from the world and painted a big bullseye on us by leaving our borders wide open. Not to mention sending most of our domestic civil defense overseas to fight a war that he can't decide why we're there for.

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"If it was for charity alone"

No one said it was for charity alone. That's why Bush was against nation building. He was against charity alone. This is charity-plus. There are multiple reasons, including the betterment of those populations.

Steve G... it was ONE of the reasons. It just wasn't the primary reason pushed (in the press).

As for the "mess" in Iraq. It was Bush that said well before, and since the Iraq war started that this would be long and difficult. So be it. To act like Bush is failing, though, seems just plain odd. Typically Kerry himself doesn't even say he'd do things differently. He just says "better" and "smarter" - which, lets face it - isn't reallly saying much. He'd "supply more jobs." Sounds nice... but if it were as easy as saying it, Iraq wouldn't be such a difficult long hard road.

Why won't Kerry answer how he'd handle the N. Korea nuclear situation? He claims its hypothetical - but its not. Its a real situation. The hypothetical (or highly-pathetical) part is whether or not he'll be President and have to deal with it - but the question of what to do is very much real. If he can't answer now about this issue - what makes you think he'd have an answer outside retreat for the situation is Iraq? He's got no vision... just ambition.

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 5 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
Coffee Cat, Microphone Jonez asked you a question. I'd like to hear your answer.

[Smile]

IP: Logged
MICROPHONE JONEZ
Member
Member # 1918

Icon 1 posted      Profile for MICROPHONE JONEZ           Edit/Delete Post 
[snore]
IP: Logged
Sketchpad
IE # 5
Member # 661

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sketchpad   Author's Homepage   Email Sketchpad         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting that many of the issues discussed here in this thread can be found addressed in this speech:
John Kerry's Speech at New York University

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
Microphone Jonez and Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard, I'm sorry - I just thought that Nooginstein answered perfectly well.

Bush said that doing this in Iraq would be a war on terror, and against rough nations. Look at the difference in the past:

-Clinton allowed N. Korea to sign a "peace" treaty and they developed nukes anyway

-Bush invades Iraq for repeatedly violating UN resolutions in regards to their nuke program and Lybia reveals and surrenders its program

which worked better?

Was a treaty succcessful preemption? Or was war with Iraq (which not only removed Saddam from power, but disarmed Lybia)?

Besides, didn't Microphone Jonez say "I can't think of ONE other thing."

Nooginstein did a great job listing numerous things. You ignoring them doesn't mean they're not listed and plain to see.

I'd also list Enron. Enron and many other companies were marking down huge FALSE success under Clinton. While Bush gets blamed with Enron, merely because Enron's scandal was revealed under his term - the fact is plain - they were getting away with it under the Clinton runaway economy. They had to clean up their act - and while it may have hurt our economy and seemed negative - a healthier economy is one without the false success inflating it.

I'll list some of the few bad things, as well:

-under the tax cuts, many poor people were removed from paying any taxes at all. While this might seem beneficial to them - its good for working people to pay taxes... it makes the tax issue valuable to all Americans. If more now don't pay any taxes at all - its more that won't care about the next tax cut that gets presented cause it won't benefit them at all... and they'll resent richer people getting money back and not them. I think that was a bad thing.

-the education system should have been cleaned up and held to account before signing on and getting Kennedy to write the single largest expansion of the education system we've seen since its conception. And it didn't buy Bush anything cause he still gets criticized for not doing enough.

-being too PC with the wars we've waged. If it weren't for political concerns, much more could be done over there to clean up the volatile solution - but too much political hay would be made of it, and Bush treads too lightly sometimes, which only allows the terrorists trying to disrupt things to disrupt things too too much. He should have taken off the gloves by now.

I'm sure there is more I can list. Bush is a moderate, not a conservative.

For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would vote for Kerry. Would it be too much to ask why anyone intellegent person would vote for Kerry? Kerry has been nothing but attack ads, by the way. To place Bush alone in that is insane. Negative ads are what every election is. You'll just have to get used to that.

BTW, no response necissary. Kerry is offering a bunch of socialist "freebies" and a false sense of security by waivering on the war. What is it they say, though? Ignorance is bliss.

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Ignorance is bliss.
Feeling pretty blissful, CC?

I throw it right back at you....why would any thinking person who is seeing what is going on in Iraq and then hears W say things are getting better dumb enough to vote for him?

If your only reason for voting for W is you don't want Kerry than that makes less sense than anyone voting for Kerry because they don't want W in office.
We've seen for 4 years what W can do (or not). Even Repubs are now saying Iraq is in deep kaka. But not W.I'd rather take my chances on someone new and vote him out after 4 years if he screws up as bad as W.
You use the typical GOP "it's Clinton's fault" arguments for all the ills in our country. Get over it. When does W start taking the blame for his mistakes? After 4 more years of screwups?

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Nooginstein
Member
Member # 2167

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Nooginstein   Email Nooginstein         Edit/Delete Post 
This is pretty interesting and definitely relevant; I got it from Hugh Hewitt's website:

From a Marine Corps Major in Baghdad:

"A thought from Iraq - "Doom & Gloom about Iraq's future....I don't see it from where I'm sitting."

[For those of you who haven't gotten my "Thoughts" before, I'm a Major in the USMC on the Multi-National Corps staff in Baghdad. The analysts and pundits who don't see what I see on a daily basis, in my opinion, have very little credibility to talk about the situation - especially if they have yet to set foot in Iraq. Everything Americans believe about Iraq is simply perception filtered through one's latent prejudices until you are face-to-face with reality. If you haven't seen, or don't remember, the John Wayne movie, The Green Berets , you should watch it this weekend. Pay special attention to the character of the reporter, Mr. Beckwith (the Journalist in the movie) . His characters experience is directly related to the situation here. You'll have a different perspective on Iraq after the movie is over.]

The US media is abuzz today with the news of an intelligence report that is very negative about the prospects for Iraq's future. CNN's website says, "[The] National Intelligence Estimate was sent to the White House in July with a classified warning predicting the best case for Iraq was 'tenuous stability' and the worst case was civil war." That report, along with the car bombings and kidnappings in Baghdad in the past couple days are being portrayed in the media as more proof of absolute chaos and the intransigence of the insurgency.

From where I sit, at the Operational Headquarters in Baghdad, that just isn't the case. Let's lay out some background, first about the "National Intelligence Estimate." The most glaring issue with its relevance is the fact that it was delivered to the White House in July . That means that the information that was used to derive the intelligence was gathered in the Spring - in the immediate aftermath of the April battle for Fallujah, and other events. The report doesn't cover what has happened in July or August, let alone September.

The naysayers will point to the recent battles in Najaf and draw parallels between that and what happened in Fallujah in April. They aren't even close. The bad guys did us a HUGE favor by gathering together in one place and trying to make a stand. It allowed us to focus on them and defeat them. Make no mistake, Al Sadr's troops were thoroughly smashed. The estimated enemy killed in action is huge. Before the battles, the residents of the city were afraid to walk the streets. Al Sadr's enforcers would seize people and bring them to his Islamic court where sentence was passed for religious or other violations. Long before the battles people were looking for their lost loved ones who had been taken to "court" and never seen again. Now Najafians can and do walk their streets in safety. Commerce has returned and the city is being rebuilt. Iraqi security forces and US troops are welcomed and smiled upon. That city was liberated again. It was not like Fallujah - the bad guys lost and are in hiding or dead.

You may not have even heard about the city of Samarra. Two weeks ago, that Sunni Triangle city was a "No-go" area for US troops. But guess what? The locals got sick of living in fear from the insurgents and foreign fighters that were there and let them know they weren't welcome. They stopped hosting them in their houses and the mayor of the town brokered a deal with the US commander to return Iraqi government sovereignty to the city without a fight. The people saw what was on the horizon and decided they didn't want their city looking like Fallujah in April or Najaf in August.

Boom, boom, just like that two major "hot spots" cool down in rapid succession. Does that mean that those towns are completely pacified? No. What it does mean is that we are learning how to do this the right way. The US commander in Samarra saw an opportunity and took it - probably the biggest victory of his military career and nary a shot was fired in anger. Things will still happen in those cities, and you can be sure that the bad guys really want to take them back. Those achievements, more than anything else in my opinion, account for the surge in violence in recent days - especially the violence directed at Iraqis by the insurgents. Both in Najaf and Samarra ordinary people stepped out and took sides with the Iraqi government against the insurgents, and the bad guys are hopping mad. They are trying to instill fear once again. The worst thing we could do now is pull back and let that scum back into people's homes and lives.

So, you may hear analysts and prognosticators on CNN, ABC and the like in the next few days talking about how bleak the situation is here in Iraq, but from where I sit, it's looking significantly better now than when I got here. The momentum is moving in our favor, and all Americans need to know that, so please, please, pass this on to those who care and will pass it on to others. It is very demoralizing for us here in uniform to read & hear such negativity in our press. It is fodder for our enemies to use against us and against the vast majority of Iraqis who want their new government to succeed. It causes the American public to start thinking about the acceptability of "cutting our losses" and pulling out, which would be devastating for Iraq for generations to come, and Muslim militants would claim a huge victory, causing us to have to continue to fight them elsewhere (remember, in war "Away" games are always preferable to "Home" games). Reports like that also cause Iraqis begin to fear that we will pull out before we finish the job, and thus less willing to openly support their interim government and US/Coalition activities. We are realizing significant progress here - not propaganda progress, but real strides are being made. It's terrible to see our national morale, and support for what we're doing here, jeopardized by sensationalized stories hyped by media giants whose #1 priority is advertising income followed closely by their political agenda; getting the story straight falls much further down on their priority scale, as Dan Rather and CBS News have so aptly demonstrated in the last week.

Thanks for listening. Feedback is always welcome, though I can't promise an immediate response...."

IP: Logged
Steve G
IE # 12
Member # 169

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Steve G   Author's Homepage   Email Steve G         Edit/Delete Post 
He forgot to add: "Only watch the FoxNews networks for a true picture of what's happening".

Sorry, I've got a problem with anonymous postings......

It'd be nice if he was on the level and right.

--------------------
http://stevenegordon.blogspot.com
http://stevenegordon.com

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
Lets face it, if you agree that the war in Iraq was justified, then you're going to agree with Bush and probably vote him in for anouther term. If you think it was unjustified, then you probably will vote for Kerry.

I heard this morning that a motion has passed through the US Senate about a possible invasion of Iran. It is being pushed by the Hawks who pushed for the Iraq war. My question to the people who support this current administration, would you still support the US acting unilateraly or as a coalition with Great Britian in an invasion of Iran?

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
I don't think I did blame Clinton for all of what's gone wrong. Not at all.

You seem to want to blame W, though.

I don't see that at all.

He's had one of the toughest terms for a US President in a long long time, and I think we're actually doing remarkably well.

Saying Iraq is a mess isn't fair. Were Japan and Germany fixed overnight after WW2? We're still in the middle of the war on terror - with terrorist intentionally attempting to disrupt Iraq specifically. Given that, its quite amazing things aren't much worse. I do believe it was liberal news networks (outside of Fox News) that were saying initially that we've have 10s of thousands of body bags coming home - and that was just from the war in Afgahnistan.

Iraq might not be perfect- but we knew this was going to be tough. And it is on the right track.

AND, Its going to get worse before it gets better, too.

How can we blame Bush for an imperfect world a mere 3 years after 9/11? I thought the world changed on 9/11? But we seem to desire a pre-9/11 false sense of security again rather than the pain of long term hard-won true sense of security. And you're holding the President accountable for imperfection, instability, and for praising how far we have come? There are terrorist over there trying to hold Iraq back. Without this President - how many more of there kind would still be around?

I think some things are just nicer to see. But doing what's right often times doesn't look pretty and nice and tied with a bow.

Besides - Kerry wants the UN involved. Do we really need to run down a list of their botched failures and disasters? And you act like Bush can't do anything right?

IP: Logged
Sketchpad
IE # 5
Member # 661

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sketchpad   Author's Homepage   Email Sketchpad         Edit/Delete Post 
Not the Japan and Germany comparison again.

Coffee Cat are you running out of coffee? Wake up, man: Japan and Germany didn't have terrorism and an increasing insurgency after their unconditional surrender.

I'm giving you four Graemlins out of five for that one.

[Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes]

IP: Logged
Sketchpad
IE # 5
Member # 661

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Sketchpad   Author's Homepage   Email Sketchpad         Edit/Delete Post 
And as for the so-called messege "From a Marine Corps Major in Baghdad" all I have to say is that they have built some pretty huge and sturdy walls around the American compound...and they continue to build huge and sturdy walls.

Some progress. [abducted]

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually I remember in 2003 Bush Appealled to the UN for help but recieved a less than stellar response given the fact that just a year earlier he refused UN involvement.

Japan and germany required intense infrastructure rebuilding, but both nations conceded defeat and post war local resistance was minimal. Generally they actually worked with the allies to make it happen. Iraq is completely different, it is surrounded by hostile territory for the US captors which is fueling the will of the people to resist real or percieved occupation. Decades of meddling in Middle Eastern affairs have earned the Western giants (US and Britian) not one shred of trust or integrity among the local populace. Lets face it you have an uphill battle without a neutral force in place that has less 'interests' at stake.

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"Coffee Cat are you running out of coffee? Wake up, man: Japan and Germany didn't have terrorism and an increasing insurgency after their unconditional surrender."

Exactly. So why are you expecting things to be running perfectly in Iraq? Japan and Germany took a long time to rebuild, and we had troops placed there long term. And it wasn't nearly as tricky. In your own words they "didn't have terrorism and an increasing insurgency after their unconditional surrender." He has a MORE DIFFICULT job!!!!!! Sounds like you should be saying how good Bush is doing given the situation.

"Japan and germany required intense infrastructure rebuilding, but both nations conceded defeat and post war local resistance was minimal. Generally they actually worked with the allies to make it happen. Iraq is completely different, it is surrounded by hostile territory for the US captors which is fueling the will of the people to resist real or percieved occupation. Decades of meddling in Middle Eastern affairs have earned the Western giants (US and Britian) not one shred of trust or integrity among the local populace. Lets face it you have an uphill battle without a neutral force in place that has less 'interests' at stake."

So it sounds like Bush shouldn't be considered incompitent - but rather, we have a difficult job to do WHILE fighting TERRORIST that are intetionally trying to dissrupt the reconstruction and democratization of the country. A MORE difficult job that post war Japan and Germany. That was precisely my point.

Japan and Germany were not perfect within a years time - and did NOT have terrorist flooding the region trying to turn the whole place upside down again.

And our preceived untrustworthiness and lack of integrity would be confirmed if we back out. The only way to GAIN trust and integrity in that region is to stay the course. Prior to the war people were saying the same thing and providing evidence on how we started something and then LEFT! Leaving the people to flounder or get swallowed up or oppressed. These are reasons to steel our resolve in Iraq - not preceive difficult as failure - but as a challenge that MUST be met.

The TERRORISTS are the ones turning Iraq upside down. But Bush is being blamed for imperfection.

IP: Logged
Jon
IE # 110
Member # 10

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Jon   Author's Homepage   Email Jon         Edit/Delete Post 
A couple of interesting quotes from our old friend Bill Clinton:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Clinton seemed to have been convinced of the same thing Bush was convinced of. But with Clinton, it was a lot of talk but no action. A lot like the European leaders of today.

Oh wait, it's all because Bush is such a damned good liar.

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually you missed my point coffey, its because he has such a difficult task that he should be looking for help from the international community and seeking to get a neutral army in there to act as peace keepers and have had the government set up under a unilateral stage. The biggest mistake this administration did was going in alone without the support of the international community... this is the end result that they are struggling with now. Lets face it, the US just isn't liked in the Middle East because of their previous involvements. It puts America in an extremely difficult position to be doing what they are currently trying to do there. Clinton didn't go in, neither did Bush senior even though the hawks were encouraging him to back in 1990 (the same hawks who encouraged and finally won over Bush Jr). Bush Juniors administration went in fool hardily and with tremendous disregard for the consequences... speaks for itself.
IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
I didn't miss the point. I'm just using those same considerations to make a seperate point: Bush is being blamed for the difficulties in Iraq not being erased in a very very short period of time. Your point doesn't counter this - it just ignores it - and I wanted to use your points to reassert mine: Bush isn't incomp. - he's doing quite well in an very difficult situation.

It was 9/11 that pushed the younger Bush... not the hawks.

Bush is doing this out of a sense of necessity - not because he "wants" to. You can disagree with him on whats he's bit off, and think he bit off more cookie than we can chew - but what most of you are doing on this board is to take away a nice glass of milk to wash it down and blame him when he chokes a tad getting that cookie down.

The Mid East hating us is not a reason to stay out of there and allowed them all arm up with nukes. Iran has come up. I'm not calling for war - but I think the question was posed wrong. This is what is more important: do you want Iran to have active nukes? Do you want them to be a pre-emptive situation, or a N. Korea situation that is so touchy now John Kerry won't even answer questions of how to deal with them.

Think of THE FOG OF WAR and ask if the terrorists would have bothered with JFKs negotiations?

War might not be necissary with Iran - but if inaction allows them to go nuclear - this will not be a happy day in world history.

With Saddam's abuse of UN resolutions, war became the only option for security. We didn't need to do the same with Lybia. Hopefully not with Iran. But you take away all the bargaining chips when you oppose war completely up front. Or do you think Lybia gave up their nukes based on peace marches in the US?

IP: Logged
Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard
IE # 8
Member # 2280

Icon 3 posted      Profile for Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard   Author's Homepage   Email Jennifer Hachigian Jerrard         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It was 9/11 that pushed the younger Bush... not the hawks.
Perhaps, but Bush should have gotten better intelligence before invading a country that had no link to 9/11 or al-Qaida.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Jon
IE # 110
Member # 10

Icon 5 posted      Profile for Jon   Author's Homepage   Email Jon         Edit/Delete Post 
There are no countries with links to Al-Qaeda or the 911 attrocity ... and isn't that the problem with terrorism? Bush did what Clinton (with his intelligence) said we should have done. I guess the lucky thing for Clinton is he wasn't in office to enjoy the results.

Action, or inaction. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

"In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." Theodore Roosevelt

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
"It was 9/11 that pushed the younger Bush... not the hawks"

History doesn't back you up on this one. Chenney himself motioned and put forth a plan to directly attack Bagdad and remove Saddam from power in 1990. Bush Senior and general Schwarzkopf wisey disregarded the plan. He and his ilk have always strongly encouraged the administration to invade Iraq and forcably remove Saddam from power. They drafted documents encouraging military action and the inherent percieved problems with continueing constabulatory duties in the region. Most of his upper level administration wanted this pre 9-11. They had drafted plans to attack pre 9-11. This is all very well documented. 9-11 gave them all the excuses they needed. the rest they'd make up as they went along. History has now proven this true as well. The president doesn't act alone, he does not weild power like a dictator.

There is also something called scalability of response. Neither Bush senior nor Clinton in their calls for action against Iraq were calling for a full scale land invasion and occupation. Roosevelts quote is a nice sound bite, but moronic. If this same logic were used to justify an invasion of Cuba during the cuban missile crises, we'de all be cinders and dust right now. Once again criticism of the current action is not an endorsement for no action.

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
As for points, I'm putting the horse befor the carriage. The Bush administration is in the pickle they are now because of thier recklessness of action. This outcome was plain to see from miles away. Now the world has to address real solutions to the problems at hand. I think digging ones self into a big whole and then stating admirably that you have good climbing skills is a foolish endeavor.
IP: Logged
LeftyMcKay
IE # 168
Member # 2558

Icon 1 posted      Profile for LeftyMcKay   Author's Homepage   Email LeftyMcKay         Edit/Delete Post 
Jennifer, I posted this back in June, but I guess it needs repeating:

While there is no evidence specifically connecting Iraq and al-Quida regarding the attacks of September 11, there is plenty of evidence that the two were in collusion. According to 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman “The Clinton administration portrayed the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam's intelligence services as one of cooperating in weapons development. There's abundant evidence of that.”
“The Bush administration has never said that [Iraq] participated in the 9/11 attack,” Lehman said. “They've said, and our staff has confirmed, there have been numerous contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida over a period of 10 years, at least.”

It’s interesting to note as well that during the 1992 presidential campaign Al Gore often spoke about the ties between Iraq and global terrorism.

According to an article in today's New York Times, there is Hope Amid the Rubble in Afghanistan.

--------------------
 -

IP: Logged
Twedzel
IE # 102
Member # 122

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Twedzel   Email Twedzel         Edit/Delete Post 
And all this 'intelligence' has a proven and impecable record cough WOMD cough. You also avoided reprinting this

"A commission staff report says that while there were contacts between Osama bin Laden’s network and the Iraqi government, they did not appear to have produced a collaborative relationship."

This is your justification for going to War?

IP: Logged
Coffee Cat
Member
Member # 897

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Coffee Cat   Email Coffee Cat         Edit/Delete Post 
"This is your justification for going to War? "

No. I think it was his response to someone who thinks Saddam and Osama were not linked at all.

There were numerous reasons to go to war. It was Bush who said it would be long and hard from the start. One of the criticisms early on was that the elder Bush should have removed Saddam the first time! Now the argument is that it was the hawks pushing him? No. The truth is that removing Saddam would have been good - but it was the damn international coalition that said: only liberate Kuwait - do NOT go in and get Saddam. Pre-9/11 honoring the coalition was acceptable. After 9/11 priorities in some of our eyes changed. Clinton is not a good example because he did not have a Kuwait to liberate, no 9/11 to consider - merely UN resolution violations - not something big enough to go to war over. But Clinton administration opinion and intellegence is noteworthy.

Do none of you see it noteworthy that the terrorist are consuming themselves with actions in the middle east and in Iraq (supposely, this war is not about terror, despite terrorist flooding the country to fight, right?) and not on US soil?

We MUST win in Iraq, fully, in order to positively effect the middle east.

I'll say again - not only did Saddam get removed, but the terrorist ARE fighting in Iraq like it very much is a war on terror, and Lybia proves pre-emption does spread messege across the middle east that strongly benefits true peace (giving up nukes). The war in Iraq has already changed more than just Iraq for the better. We're just not done yet.

A cornered animal always hisses the loudest. Sounds like the terrorists right now.

IP: Logged


 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Animation Nation

Animation Nation © 1999-2012

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0