| May 1, 2007 @ 11:47 PM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
raykl
Posts: 566
|
I wonder how I can pay back my buddies that helped elect me.
It is debateable, but the war on terror in Afghanistan may go down as one of the biggest military blunders in history.
To use a sports analogy, every coach, from professional to kids ball, knows that when you are beating a team, you do not ease up. You continue what is working until the other team is crushed. This is what separates champions from losers.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda were beaten and on the run- close to extinction. So did the military increase its manpower and push on for total destruction? Seal off the mountain retreat into Pakistan and go for the final kill?
Our Commander-in-Chief, with all of his military knowledge, decided that the war on terror was not as important as the overthrow in Iraq. Thus, the major thrust of manpower went to Iraq and the Taliban and Al Qaeda were allowed to catch their breath and regroup. To put it into more common military words- we now find ourselves in a "world of shit" or a "Major clusterfck". I realize the UN stepped in with soldiers, but they are mainly a peacekeeping force- not a strikeforce.
I have stated before, the study of history is crucial to avoid making the same mistakes that others have made. Hitler proved how foolhardy it was to launch a 2nd front before completing the first front.
But, I am foolishly making the asumption that our leader actually can read, let alone having the ability to study military history......
|
|
  |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 12:16 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
If you're going to compare Hitler to Bush, do it right.
Enabler Act=Patriot Act
Hitler stated he worked for the creator, Bush thinks God works through him.
Hitler justified illegal actions in his own country by saying he was fighting terrorist factions. Bush justifies illegal searches and wire-taps by saying it's part of the war on terrorism.
Prescott Bush (GWB's grandfather) made money off the Nazi party while we were at war with them, and after it had been made illegal.
Hitler was the most well known dictator in the world. Bush said a dictatorship would work, if he were the dictator.
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 2:00 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
The Taliban and Al Qaeda were beaten and on the run- close to extinction.
How so? AQ trained in Afganistan as well as Saudi Arabia and are a lose organization more akin to a theology rather than a unit. Therefore, there is no center to hit. Afganistan merely placed the supporters of AQ out of power which, was the intent.
Our Commander-in-Chief, with all of his military knowledge, decided that the war on terror was not as important as the overthrow in Iraq.
He realized that Saddam needed to be dealt with and that US troops needed to be placed within stiking distance of Saudi Arabia in force to take care of the Jihadists within the kingdom that the Royal Family was reluctent to take care of themselves. As well, taking into considerationthat radical Wahabbism has over fifty percent support within the kingdom, having US troops close by to give support if need, but not providing the agitation within the kindom that AQ would use by actually being there was required. This gave the Saudis the confidence to deal with the financing and actions that previously, they had to out of polltical expeidiency to allow. As for Iraq, it was simply a place to place those troops in that with Saddam, he pretty much pleaded for intervention with his cat and mouse games over the previous decade, thereby provding a perfect opportunity.
Thus, the major thrust of manpower went to Iraq and the Taliban and Al Qaeda were allowed to catch their breath and regroup.
Where has Al Queda, the international terrorist/jihadist organizatin that has no center, leadership chain or body mass regrouped? If you know this info, tell Interpol immediately!
I realize the UN stepped in with soldiers, but they are mainly a peacekeeping force- not a strikeforce.
Canada and a few others are strikeforces.
Hitler proved how foolhardy it was to launch a 2nd front before completing the first front.
And that's correct. So, with the Taliban not able to retake Afganistan and the UN taking them out and rebuilding schools, towns, roads and such. Al queda being minimalized via denial of operating territiory and financeing in Saudi Arabia, that leaves insurgents composed of Saddamists, Sunni Jihadists and Shiite radicals who compose your second front in Iraq.
But, I am foolishly making the asumption that our leader actually can read, let alone having the ability to study military history...
Your leader is mediocre but, your recent history is also flawed to a great degree as well.
Hitler justified illegal actions in his own country by saying he was fighting terrorist factions. Bush justifies illegal searches and wire-taps by saying it's part of the war on terrorism.
In Hitler's time there were no terrorists. Surely you are not about to tell us all there is no such thing as a Jihadist?
Hitler was the most well known dictator in the world. Bush said a dictatorship would work, if he were the dictator.
Obviously he is not a dictator as you keep on harping about how the 'people have spoken' in so many of your posts reffering to the congressional elections. Hence, Bush is nothing like Hitler otherwise, he would have simply dragged the members of both houses out to be tortured and then after confessing, shot.
|
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 2:06 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
I never said Bush was a dictator. He's nothing but a wannabe. And now, a wannabe with no power or credibility.
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 2:24 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
I never said Bush was a dictator. He's nothing but a wannabe. And now, a wannabe with no power or credibility.
A dictator is defined as ""a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.""
I believe that all his actions have been within the law although some may be argued that they were not however, those arguments will also be allowed. Something a dictator would certainly not allow. As for wanting or not wanting, many people wish to be king of the world. I hardly think that thought has never entered every person's mind.
|
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 2:40 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
It's obvious you defend his wish to be a dictator, but his 6 year reign of no checks and balances is over. His 'my way or the highway' approach is dead. It is now a two way street, and he can either make compromises and negotiate, or he will find no funds for HIS war.
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 6:55 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
MarysPlace
Posts: 2,930
|
How not to win the war on terror...
You know, ever since 9/11 there was enough Bush/Republican bashing and criticism going around to last us a few centuries. Everyone is such an expert on "how not".
I have yet to hear experts from the lib camp saying anything on "how to". Not just on this particular issue, but on almost all the others.
As far as terror goes, God help us if dems win the office.
|
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 7:17 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
sealacamp
Posts: 3,681
|
I have yet to hear experts from the lib camp saying anything on "how to". Not just on this particular issue, but on almost all the others.
In every war, police action, or conflict that this nation has ever had, including the revolutionary war, a group such as this has clanged the gong of emptiness. And now it is louder than ever yet merits only a passing look as there is no substance to these arguments. Logic and reason are dead. Skewed perception and "feelings" have taken their place. Long live insanity.
S
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 7:20 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 4,759
|
God help us if dems win the office.
God help us all if a Republican wins office...then the cvluster flopping will just continue and continue and continue and continue and continue and continue and continue and continue and continue and continue 
|
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 8:03 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
God help us if the Republicans ever stop making the democrats job in 2008 easier.
|
| |
|
| May 2, 2007 @ 8:18 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
FeliciVagano
Posts: 2,152
|
God help us if bush declares martial law and suspends the constitution...
|
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 1:30 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
It's obvious you defend his wish to be a dictator, but his 6 year reign of no checks and balances is over.
No. There is nothing to defend. You speak of 'reign' as if he forced laws and his will through without allowing discussion or argument. The recent elections that you have spoken about in this and other posts show how shallow your contention is. A person who wished to be a dictator never would have allowed those to happen.
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 8:02 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
eastham
Posts: 7,907
|
There is nothing to defend. You speak of 'reign' as if he forced laws and his will through without allowing discussion or argument. The recent elections that you have spoken about in this and other posts show how shallow your contention is
You are both right and wrong, Nova. Since the 1994 Republican revolution, despite promises for more open floor rules, etc, the number of bills which came to the House and Senate floors under closed rules skyrocketed. For the past six years the situation has deteriorated with many bills coming to the floor under closed rules (a bill comes to the floor with a rule -- a closed rule limits debate and provides for no amendments), in the middle of the night and often without prior Congressional hearings. The bills were often introduced by a committee chairman at the behest of the White House.
|
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 10:51 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
bryan2992
Posts: 688
|
I know ooo oo I know, here's what we do see. we blame global warming on the middle east yeah yeah thats it yeah. then the dems and libs will be all over them for ruining the planet. this way they spend 4 times as much and twice the troops and show even less done because they won't let our soldiers do anything in case it hurts someones feelings yeah yeah thats the ticket yeah  
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 11:13 AM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
Always_Striving
Posts: 8,794
|
There is no terror, just U.S. troops occupying a land where they are not supposed to be in the first place.
It's a failed presidency with some clown trying to make a name for himself in the history books.
|
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 5:58 PM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
He's not trying AS, he's actually making a name for himself. It's just not the name he was hoping for.
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 7:31 PM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
uab_5
Posts: 4,759
|
Remember the Dana Carvey impersonation involving Mk.1?
Don't wanna be a one termer, don't wanna be a one termer.
Mk.2 is right now sitting in the Oval Office going:
Don't wanna leave the White House. Can't do it. Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture. 
|
|
| |
|
| May 3, 2007 @ 10:07 PM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
Novalite
Posts: 3,253
|
The bills were often introduced by a committee chairman at the behest of the White House.
So a bill being introduced by an elected official is your version of dictatorship?
|
| |
|
| May 4, 2007 @ 7:30 PM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or:
|
|
Bj864
Posts: 3,958
|
As far as terror goes, God help us if dems win the office.
God help the entire planet, if they don't..............
|
|
| |
|
| May 4, 2007 @ 8:20 PM |
How Not To Win The War On Terror or: |
|
FeliciVagano
Posts: 2,152
|
Nova.... read this...
For the past six years the situation has deteriorated with many bills coming to the floor under closed rules (a bill comes to the floor with a rule -- a closed rule limits debate and provides for no amendments), in the middle of the night and often without prior Congressional hearings.The bills were often introduced by a committee chairman at the behest of the White House.
now,..in you own words explain what you just read here...and then maybe you will not make statements like......
So a bill being introduced by an elected official is your version of dictatorship?
(I will add what she left out..and these bills were (in the early years of the dictatorship.) ..rubberstamped...)
|
| |
|
|
|
|