Join the Discussion

Comments So Far: 198

• 0%

  chuck-the-canuck3 months, 1 week ago

  What a guy, building democracy in Iraq, while he's tearing it down at home.

  He's quite a fella alrighty. You red-staters must be so proud.

  Reply

  37 Replies

  • 0%

    earthlingerer3 months, 1 week ago

    If you look at democracy in that region, specifically Gaza, it's clear they have their own view of "democracy", which is to vote for who they say you can.

    Iran had a pretty good democracy, until the US decided to "help".

    But you'd have to check out your neck of the woods, too, as Harper isn't so far from Bush, and armed US state and federal officers prowl the Great White North.

    Reply

    12 Replies

    • 0%

      BB643 months, 1 week ago

      I find it interesting how history is being rewritten daily in many areas concerning this topic. In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response Britain embargoed Iranian oil. It was after this he opened talks with the USSR and laid plans for a Stalin like state. Because of the oil in this region, the USA and British supported a revolution. If you know Ike, he wasn't a supporter of any monarchies unless it was the only alternative to a communist government.

      On your comments concerning armed border people it's about time.

      Reply

      10 Replies

      • 0%

        djn3nunez33 months, 1 week ago

        "It was after this he opened talks with the USSR and laid plans for a Stalin like state."

        The British need not have invoked the Soviet threat to win over John Foster Dulles or his brother Allen Dulles, director of the Central Intelligence Agency; both were former members of the Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.[34] Besides, there was ample evidence that Mossadegh was neither a Communist nor a communist sympathizer. Nevertheless, Operation Ajax was hatched...

        ...Yet a January 1953 State Department intelligence report said that the prime minister was not a Communist or communist sympathizer and that the Tudeh party sought his overthrow.[38] Indeed, Mossadegh had opposed the Soviet occupation after the war.

        http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1019...

        Reply
      • 0%

        Candida3 months, 1 week ago

        BB64: "It was after this he opened talks with the USSR and laid plans for a Stalin like state."

        Even if this were true, could you explain why exactly the Iranians are not allowed to have the form of government they choose, and who, other then themselves, has the right to dictate to them what kind of government they should have?

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          BB643 months, 1 week ago

          I'm not for taking their rights to their own form of government. What I am against is their constant funding of Hammas and other terrorist groups, including the guys planting the IED's in Iraq.

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            Candida3 months, 1 week ago

            Did they do that under Mossadegh?

            Reply
          • 0%

            sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

            BB - Under Clinton, Iran started to build a relation w/ the US thru Madeline Albright. Lower level officials had several (?a couple?) meetings. Iran was willing to abandon its nuclear industry back then. The deals could not be finalized due to the impeachment proceedings on Clinton.

            Clinton did pass on the task to Bush and his State Department.

            GWB, in his infinite wisdom, did not pursue the rapprochement, because he looked down on everything the previous administration had done.

            Yet Iran persisted. After 9/11, they helped track OBL for our forces. When various warlords balked at accepting Karzai, Iran helped persuade them to accept the new govt.

            Bush rewarded them a few months later by calling Iran of the Axis of Evil in his State of the Union address. He was obeying the tenets of the ultraright conservatives.

            What I object to is Bush's short-sighted refusal to accept Iranian peace feelers. He blew this historic opportunity. Now Iran is run by hard line imams and a

            Reply

            4 Replies

            • 0%

              sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

              hard nosed Ahmadinejad. After how Bush treated them, how do you think they would have reacted?

              Well, they went on their merry way and made decisions that were suitable for them and not the US.

              So, if they fund Hamas and the Shiite militia in Iraq, Bush has only himself to blame.

              Bush has no comprehension of the need and the art of diplomacy. He only knows one response to any situation - throw the US forces in there. He LOVES those military toys at his command.

              In short, Bush is a power-hungry, blood-thirsty, conservative, rigid, paranoid idiot

              Reply

              3 Replies

              • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.2 Replies

                • 0%

                  wtagg3 months, 1 week ago

                  I think you need to remove the word conservative. There is nothing in Bush's track record that defines him as a conservative in the true meaning of the word.

                  Reply

                  1 Reply

                  • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
          • 0%

            Lurch3 months, 1 week ago

            Since the majority of the guys planting the IEDs are from Saudi Arabia (at least of the foreign fighters), I am against the Saudis - Bush`s patrons.

            Reply
    • 0%

      Candida3 months, 1 week ago

      earthlingerer: "you'd have to check out your neck of the woods, too, as Harper isn't so far from Bush"

      You are absolutely right. The sooner he is voted out the better.

      Reply
  • 0%

    BB643 months, 1 week ago

    Actually, I'm happy to him learning as he goes along. We're building a democracy in a nation that was ruled by a dictatorship. Free speech, personal rights & the like simply didn't exist. Cross Saddam or his people, you disappeared. See the mass graves, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/27000.htm

    On the learning part, that implies changing strategies as you go. You can't simply map a single solution to this challenge. That was Rummy's solution. It never took into account the problems from Iran, Syria and AlQeada insurgents. Single solution plans rarely work. I hope this makes sense.

    Reply

    21 Replies

    • 0%

      rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago

      Here's an interesting book on how long the Islamic revolution was in the works and what happened to bring the fundementalists into power instead of the modernists.

      An Islamic Utopian: A Political Biography of Ali Shariati by Ali Rahnema

      Reply
    • 0%

      rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago

      Funny, then, how Saddam was our ally, and our proxy and the beneficiary of our WMDs in his war against Iran. Are we really so fickle?

      http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

      Or is it just that any enemy of my enemy, even a former one, is my friend:

      http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld...

      Reply

      11 Replies

      • 0%

        BB643 months, 1 week ago

        I wouldn't call him an ally. He was thought to be a better choice than Iran. The press never covered what happened when the Shah fell. His prisons had some religious radicals inside. Those were released. He also had thousands of communists too. The new Iranian government had them executed right along with anyone connected to the Shah's government (army, navy, air force, police, fire, even the postal service and even garbage men). This included all their family members too. Wives, parents, grand parents, children, grand children, uncles, aunts, etc. It was a wholesale killing time for the radicals. Saddam was a murdering cut throat no question there. But in Iran, even army commanders who supported the revolution with troops and weapons were murdered along with their families because they worked for the Shah.

        Reply

        9 Replies

        • 0%

          BB643 months, 1 week ago

          On your claims of WMD, which ones? Most of your side can't decide what that actually means. When Bush used the term it included nuclear, chemical and bio weapons. Yet when the troops found the chemical and bio stuff, all that mattered was the nuclear that wasn't found, yet.

          The machines used to make the chemical and bio products came from France, Germany, USSR, China, Spain, Italy and Japan. Some were simple lab equipment others were machine tools. As to US support, I don't know. It's possible but not as likely as your side would like to think. Congress back then was busy attacking Reagan, Iran Contra thing. Selling weapons stuff to Iraq would have been brought out, unless they were in on it, so I suspect the direct help wasn't from us.

          Also, your sources are less than credible.

          Reply

          7 Replies

          • 0%

            Dionys3 months, 1 week ago

            "Are we really so fickle? "

            Umm.

            Yes.

            Reply
          • 0%

            djn3nunez33 months, 1 week ago

            Don't recall Iraqgate do ya? How about the Teicher Affidavit? Doesn't suprise me that many govenrment officials and members of the press and interventionists want to forget about it.

            By removing Saddam from the nations who support terrorist list in 1982, Raygun opened the door for our allies to sell Western Technology to Iraq. Not only did US companies, as well as many of the allies you mentioned, do so but also the US government supplied him with 4 billion dollars in loans during the protracted war with Iran (and btw Iraq defaulted on the loans and guess who pays for them?). Not only that but with this new level of cooperation between the west a Saddam he sent procurement agent abroad to aquire the means to produce a nuclear device. The fact that he had a "manhattan project" under developement was not discovered until the facility was blown up during the first gulf war show how irresponsible Rayguns policies were.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago

              Bush is the only repo man who could go in to get back his $4 billion and lose billions more (including the $15 billion the army can't find) instead.

              Reply

            • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
          • 0%

            Candida3 months, 1 week ago

            BB64: "Selling weapons stuff to Iraq would have been brought out, unless they were in on it, so I suspect the direct help wasn't from us."

            So you've never heard of US support to Iraq? Let me help you out:

            "The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East."

            Reply
          • 0%

            Candida3 months, 1 week ago

            'The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

            What was the Reagan administration's response? A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results."'

            http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              Candida3 months, 1 week ago

              "Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions."

              http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

              Reply
        • 0%

          sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

          BB - On this topic of Bush's learning curve on nation building, I'm not sure why you got off onto talking about Mossadegh, the Shah, Khomeini, and Saddam. The latter 3 are all tyrranical, brutal leaders. None of them have any historical glory to speak of. The only quibble I have is your exaggeration of the executions under the Ayatollah. Only in ancient China have I read about traitors being executed and all the relatives to the 7th degree. Now THAT'S brutal.

          Reply
      • 0%

        Grancher3 months, 1 week ago

        It's like Lord Palmerston said "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

        Reply
    • 0%

      cleare3 months, 1 week ago

      on the other hand, if you didn't cross saddam or the baathist party, you had a pretty good standard of living. you know, things like jobs, clean water and electricity (air conditioning is pretty necessary in the desert). you also didn't have to worry about getting killed by a fellow iraqi in a suicide bombing. Such is not the case now, since we "liberated" them.

      bush learning as he goes??? i'd say it's about darn time, if i weren't laughing so hard.

      Reply

      1 Reply

      • 0%

        dissent3 months, 1 week ago

        i think he meant to say he's making it up as he goes, he just wanted to sound intellectual

        Reply
    • 0%

      cleare3 months, 1 week ago

      ...on the other hand, if you didn't cross saddam or the baathist party, you had a fairly good standard of living...things like, oh...jobs, clean water and electricity. you also didn't have to worry about getting killed by your fellow iraqis' suicide bombs and IEDs...not to mention being "collateral damage". i'm sure they fully appreciate their new freedoms.

      and as far as bush learning as he goes!!! i'd say it's about time if i weren't laughing so hard.

      Reply
    • 0%

      DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago

      Cross Bush or his people, you will disappear, personal rights and property first:

      http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07...

      And at least you could see Saddam's mass graves. Bush banned photos of flag-draped coffins coming home so Americans could not see the cost of his insane war.

      If indeed he has learned anything, please do tell us what strategy he has changed as a result? No, he's still out there telling us to be patient with the same failed policy.

      Reply
    • 0%

      djn3nunez33 months, 1 week ago

      "We're building a democracy in a nation that was ruled by a dictatorship."

      Nope we invaded an oil rich Arab nation that was not involved in the 9-11 attacks. The following occupation was bungled so bad that a civil war broke out killing ten of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, countless, innocent Iraqis civilians.

      While spreading democracy may be a noble idea, the President has no constitutional authority to engage in such endeavors.

      Reply

      2 Replies

      • 0%

        Dionys3 months, 1 week ago

        "While spreading democracy may be a noble idea, the President has no constitutional authority to engage in such endeavors. "

        Nor does he support democracy, except when it suits his purposes.

        Reply
      • 0%

        dissent3 months, 1 week ago

        "While spreading democracy may be a noble idea"

        yeah, too bad the idea came as a cover his a$$ afterthought when the first idea, wmds, proved him to be a warmongering liar. and there's nothing noble about that

        Reply

    • baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
  • 0%

    Candida3 months, 1 week ago

    Chuck The Canuck: "He's quite a fella alrighty"

    He is indeed. From the article:

    'He noted that in Iraq "we learned from hard experience" that political and economic progress is hard without first establishing "some measure of security."'

    He didn't know this before the invasion?

    Reply

    1 Reply

    • 0%

      Beau78903 months, 1 week ago

      If it weren't so unbelievably frightening, I'd be laughing at the idea that a commander-in-chief who invaded a sovereign nation would make such a statement.

      Reply
• 0%

  gamahuche3 months, 1 week ago

  'He described the effort as a "battle of wills" and said loss will come only "if we defeat ourselves."'

  Ah!

  And "learning as we go?"

  Hm.

  Looks like he won't graduate this time round.

  Maybe - with a bit of luck - in his next lifetime he'll be a little less wilful and headstrong and settle for a major in beating swords into ploughshares.

  Reply

  77 Replies

  • 0%

    BB643 months, 1 week ago

    What would your solution be? Cut & Run? Install a Mulah from Iran? Following Barrack's statements, he'd be on a plane to Tehran surrendering all of the American armed forces. Okay, I'm a bit overboard here but you guys 2 years ago complained when the plan was stay the course. Now that he's admitted to learning as we go, it's a bad thing?

    On the defeating ourselves, we did in Vietnam. The United States never lost a single battle in Vietnam yet the war was lost in the manor in which our politicians chose to fight it. Had Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon laid the cards on the table to the Soviets and Chinese, things might have ended better for the people of Vietnam. I suspect the communists would have won anyway but there might have been less killings and "reeducation" death camps.

    Reply

    76 Replies

    • 0%

      gamahuche3 months, 1 week ago

      Really my point BB was that its a bit LATE to be learning as he goes when he's virtually GONE. If he'd done a LOT more learning BEFORE he invaded Iraq he might not have got himself trapped in a senseless imbroglio that has cost more treasure than is imaginable and still shows very little sign of a good outcome. [I know its quiet this week but what about if he decides that attacking Iran is another "learning opportunity" - for whichever poor b**tard has to follow in his footsteps.]

      Wasn't "shock-and-awe" supposed to do it in the first 48 hours??

      Or Mission Accomplished supposed to mean something or other apart from a photo-op?

      But now its LEARNING time!

      Perhaps my context is clearer now?

      Reply

      28 Replies

      • 0%

        BB643 months, 1 week ago

        Trap? What trap. Things are progressing, successes are finally being admitted by some in the media. Treasure? Again, now it's the money. Before your side complained there wasn't any WMD. Then when they found the chemicals & bio weapons, you guys only cared about nukes.

        The mission to remove saddam was accomplished. Our military took out Saddam's forces quickly. What Rummy and the DOD didn't have was proper CIA info on Iran, Syria and Alqeada. I suspect had the threat from their insurgent forces been understood, things would have been handled a little differently. On the flawed info, I'd like to see congress ask the CIA how they were so wrong for so many years. Bush 41 and Clinton were told the same lines, Saddam had chemical & bio stuf. Nukes were possible. Let's ask the CIA how they could have been so wrong for so many years.

        Reply

        27 Replies

        • 0%

          djn3nunez33 months, 1 week ago

          "Then when they found the chemicals & bio weapons, "

          The Chemical weapons we not usable and were mostly abandoned muntions lefts over from the Iran/Iraq war. Only a small amount of bio-weapon material were found.

          There were no new factories producing large amounts of Chemicals. There were no large stock piles of Chemical Weapons being stored. There were no mobile bio labs. And of course there were no nuclear weapon production facilities.

          Reply

          11 Replies

          • 0%

            BB643 months, 1 week ago

            That's not entirely true. Saddam had/has stockpiles of the forbidden products all over the place. Last summer there was one dump with over 5000 rounds of with sarin. Granted the detonators would have had to been replaced but the stuff inside was still very much active. By the way, all of this had been declared destroyed in the UN reports.

            Another anomaly that hasn't been explained was Saddam's family. Everyone remembers his murdering sons as being killed. But his family is much bigger and lives in Syria. Syria is one of Saddam's sworn enemies. What do you think he gave Assad to permit his family to live there. How many secrets or weapon systems? Syria had something destroyed by Mossad last year. Traces of chemical and fissionable materials were claimed but those new reports disappeared. I think Saddam paid for their safety with chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, or at least the people who could build them.

            Reply

            10 Replies

            • 0%

              Candida3 months, 1 week ago

              BB64: "I think Saddam paid for their safety with chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons, or at least the people who could build them."

              This is pure speculation.

              Reply
            • 0%

              DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago

              The Bin Laden family moved to Syria when Bush let them leave the U.S. (the only civilian flights allowed over U.S. airspace 9/12-15/2001).

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                dissent3 months, 1 week ago

                and that's pure fact, not specualtion

                Reply
            • 0%

              djn3nunez33 months, 1 week ago

              "By the way, all of this had been declared destroyed in the UN reports."

              Not really. There were several tonnes of chemicals that were not accounted for. A very small % compared to the numbers that were destroyed. The point is these were not newly manufactored weapons and they hardly posed a ssignificant threat to the worlds remaining superpower a half a world.

              Reply
            • 0%

              sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

              BB - You are absolutely wrong. In the 1990's UNSCOM inspectors scoured the country. By 1998, Scott Ritter, former chief inspector declared that 90-95% of all weapons had been destroyed. In retrospect from records obtained after the invasion, all production ceased in 1991. Anthrax and botulinin toxin have a useful shelf life of 3 yrs; sarin about 5 yrs; VX 6.

              Hans Blix and the UN inspection team found no WMD's. Cheney ridiculed him publicly for being fooled bu the Iraqis.

              After the invasion, there were numerous hunts by our forces for WMD's. None were found

              They did find 5000 artillery shells that were designed to carry chemicals, but they were empty. The residual chemical traces were totally degraded.

              As Ritter testified in congress, there are more toxic substances found under the average American kitchen sink than what they found in Iraq.

              After what the US did to Iraq, why would Syria be so stupid to accept any contraband from Saddam?

              As I said earlier, all these

              Reply

              4 Replies

              • 0%

                sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

                chemicals and toxins are degradable and have a relatively short useful life. Again why would Syria accept contraband that would be useless in such a short time, but then they, if caught, would be labelled as terrorist by the world also?

                These chemicals have to be continually produced to be a useful weapon for any country. If Syria wanted them, they would simply produce their own, not accept outdated, used products.

                So what you believe comes from your own, fevered paranoia. It makes no sense whatsoever.

                Reply

                3 Replies

                • 0%

                  Candida3 months, 1 week ago

                  This reminds me, when is the US planning to destroy its remaining chemical and biological weapons?

                  Reply

                  2 Replies

                  • 0%

                    Lurch3 months, 1 week ago

                    Why, the establishment may need them again if the media or Dems start to get uppity.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    dissent3 months, 1 week ago

                    it should be pretty clear by now that we work on a do as i say not as i do kind of basis.

                    Reply
            • 0%

              sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

              BB - You are absolutely wrong. In the 1990's UNSCOM inspectors scoured the country. By 1998, Scott Ritter, former chief inspector declared that 90-95% of all weapons had been destroyed. In retrospect from records obtained after the invasion, all production ceased in 1991. Anthrax and botulinin toxin have a useful shelf life of 3 yrs; sarin about 5 yrs; VX 6.

              Hans Blix and the UN inspection team found no WMD's. Cheney ridiculed him publicly for being fooled bu the Iraqis.

              After the invasion, there were numerous hunts by our forces for WMD's. None were found

              They did find 5000 artillery shells that were designed to carry chemicals, but they were empty. The residual chemical traces were totally degraded.

              As Ritter testified in congress, there are more toxic substances found under the average American kitchen sink than what they found in Iraq.

              After what the US did to Iraq, why would Syria be so stupid to accept any contraband from Saddam?

              As I said earlier, all these

              Reply
        • 0%

          Beau78903 months, 1 week ago

          Seriously, BB64.

          What Rummy and the DOD didn't have was a PLAN about what to do after deposing Saddam. What they didn't have was a firm grasp on reality.

          Remember "they'll throw flowers on our tanks"?

          MANY, MANY people saw that this administration had no idea what they were doing in Iraq and warned against invading. Even Bush Sr. and his closest advisors warned against taking Saddam out. For God's sake, WISE UP.

          Reply

          11 Replies

          • 0%

            BB643 months, 1 week ago

            Based upon the CIA reports released they never showed a threat in the assessment. What the CIA failed to report was the very strong connection Khomeini had with certain areas of Iraq. This was caused during his exile from Iran. There were people questioning the 10 years of WMD claims made by the CIA but something always prevents this from moving forward.

            Reply

            3 Replies

            • 0%

              Candida3 months, 1 week ago

              BB64: "What the CIA failed to report was the very strong connection Khomeini had with certain areas of Iraq."

              The administration didn't know that the oppressed Shiite population probably saw Shiite Iran as a potential ally? What does that say about their own intelligence?

              Besides, when the unspoken official policy is "shoot the messenger," then senior civil servants tend to deliver messeges their bosses want to hear and not necassarily what their subordinates prepare.

              Reply
            • 0%

              Beau78903 months, 1 week ago

              Khomeini? He died in 1989. If you mean Khamene'i, then Candida addressed that--didn't we ALREADY have people with direct experience with Iran and Iraq making the war policy?

              Both Rumsfeld and Cheney served in the White House while the Iran/Iraq war was going on--shouldn't they have had some awareness of the situation without having to wait for the CIA to tell them?

              Or is it just possible that they already knew about Khamenei's connection to Shiites in Iraq, but wanted to draw us into a larger war to serve the PNAC agenda?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

                Cheney was actually the Secretary of Defense under HW Bush and directed Desert Storm w/ Norman Schwartzkopf in command. Cheney actually advised Bush I not to invade Iraq itself to take out Saddam, because it would have been far more difficult and costlier in money and lives to do so.

                Wasn't Cheney such a smart young man!!!

                Reply
          • 0%

            rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago

            They actually DID welcome us as liberators after "mission accomplished", but we told them, "hold on, hold on", because WE wanted to fine-tune THEIR government. We put a wet blanket on their enthusiasm and failed to restore even basic services, while we "stayed the course" for three years, as we watched things deteriorate. We, and they, would be better off today, if we had pulled back, after mission accomplished, and simply offerred rebuilding aid and advice.

            Reply

            6 Replies

            • 0%

              Beau78903 months, 1 week ago

              To some extent, they were happy to have Saddam gone. At the same time, we failed to protect anything they might have valued other than oil fields--and we didn't do that great a job with those either. For instance, I remember hearing about major looting of national treasures from Saddam's palaces and museums.

              But I agree--if we'd scaled way back after our supposed mission was accomplished, everyone would be much better off.

              Reply

              5 Replies

              • 0%

                sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

                The irony is that the UN, France, and Russia all offered to take on the job of peace-keeping after the war. Bush, in his profound arrogance refused all their offers. Those damn Rooskies and Frogs and UN wimps! How could you possibly trust them to do a good job.

                Oh well! Such is the course of history. Another golden opportunity to relieve us of this nightmare brushed aside haughtily by Bush.

                Reply

                4 Replies

                • 0%

                  Beau78903 months, 1 week ago

                  Oh, you don't really think it was that he didn't trust them to do a good job? France and Russia wanted a piece of the oil, and the oilmen in the White House couldn't abide by that.

                  Sharing is not in their vocabulary.

                  Reply

                  3 Replies

                  • 0%

                    dissent3 months, 1 week ago

                    kind of defeats the point. the whole point of taking it is so that we wouldn't have to share it

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

                    Beau - Good point. The oil factor totally slipped my mind on this.

                    Reply
                  • 0%

                    rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago

                    The reason we did not "get" Saddam in the first Gulf War was that he still had business dealings with Europe that needed to be protected.

                    Reply
        • 0%

          Candida3 months, 1 week ago

          BB64: "What Rummy and the DOD didn't have was proper CIA info on Iran, Syria and Alqeada."

          Perhaps they should have consulted Mr. Cheney. He had all the necessary information as far back as 1994; just listen:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

          Reply
        • 0%

          wtagg3 months, 1 week ago

          There was no proper intel on anything involved with the entire effort.

          What have we gained from the effort?

          Who first suggested the idea of a surge? It was a Viet Nam vet who was chastised by the Bush admin as a traitor. The suggestion was made more than 2 years prior to the administration sudden decision to adopt it. If the idea is working now, who should be responsible for the years of effort wasted? Who should be responsible for the lives that were lost, the casualties, the financial loss?

          Reply

          1 Reply

          • 0%

            Lurch3 months, 1 week ago

            1) The `success` of the surge is due to Bush negotiating with, paying off, and/or arming the neighborhood death squads as well as giving the Al Sadr brigade a safe haven. The surge only occurred in Bagdad, whereas the violence levels went down to 2005 levels across the country

            2) Gen. Shinseki was fired for the gall of demanding that Bush invade with an adequate level of troops from the beginning. Powell Doctrine? Trashed.

            3) There was plenty of proper intel from our own agencies, the UN inspectors, and our allies. However, one would have to actually listen to hear or see to read, which would take too much of Bush`s precious energy so Bush wasted tens of thousands of lives based on a `gut feeling` rather than on evidence.

            Reply
    • 0%

      DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago

      Well, I would start by electing someone who can read words longer than three letters, like "cut and run." Even a mullah from Iran would create stability, unlike your Christian mullah from the White House.

      At least Obama has read the Koran, and maybe Sun Tzu as well: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer."

      "you guys 2 years ago complained when the plan was stay the course. Now that he's admitted to learning as we go, it's a bad thing?" I have not heard anything to suggest that his idea of learning changes anything about "stay the course" (ooh, we're up to five-letter words!).

      Your grasp of the English language is tragically telling and brutally true: "the war was lost in the manor in which our politicians chose to fight it." Go look up "manor."

      It was the Khmer Rouge that brought peace to Vietnam, after we made a mess and left.

      Kennedy did lay it down for the Soviets. That's how we got a free Cuba. Oh wait....

      Reply

      15 Replies

      • 0%

        Grancher3 months, 1 week ago

        I had a comment, but I reread you post and didn't have it anymore, is there a way to delete your own comments? It seems I can only edit.

        Reply

        3 Replies

        • 0%

          Candida3 months, 1 week ago

          If you haven't hit the Submit Comment button yet, you can get rid of it by hitting the "Go back one page" arrow in your browser. I don't think you can delete it once you've submitted the comment.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            bluetexasvalley3 months, 1 week ago

            Actually, I've found if you just delete the comment and leave the box blank, it will go away by itself after a while. If you've already submitted it, hit edit, delete and leave blank.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              dissent3 months, 1 week ago

              if all else fails just leave an emoticon. brightens up the place :)

              Reply
      • 0%

        BB643 months, 1 week ago

        Khmer Rouge? Cuba? Why aren't you sharing what you're smoking. We know it's not cigs, you Berkley libs took that right away years ago.

        Sun Tzu? Now why would you or Barrack claim he's read that book. Besides the obvious, it's a rather lengthy boring book for a liberal.

        On my spelling, I'm flat on my back from an injury still. Vike me up again. As to the manor, didn't have to look it up, saw the error but was posted too long to correct. On Vietnam, if the only error in my statement was manor verses manner, then you agree the war wasn't fought by the military but poll taking politicians. Had the military been permitted to actually invade North Vietnam, things might be different. It might have brought China into combat or it might have told them we were serious and willing to have it out. In either case we will never know.

        Reply

        8 Replies

        • 0%

          cloud153 months, 1 week ago

          But at the same time Nixon was trying to strengthen our relations with China, which in the long run greatly helped us in the cold war. If we made the same mistake of pushing the the Chinese border that we made in Korea it would have had the same effect.

          Reply

          2 Replies

          • 0%

            BB643 months, 1 week ago

            I think Nixon saw something more in the Chicoms than he did in the USSR. China was hungry for technology and money. The USA had both. I think he wanted to buy time in Vietnam. It didn't work that way, then again when you're spending so much time hiding the second rate burglary your people did, it takes away from negotiations.

            On advancing that close to the Chinese border, I don't know. I do think it would make an interesting what if talk. The problems we had in Vietnam were many and the troops paid for it. Targets were selected by Johnson. Even if he knew the enemy was somewhere, it didn't mean he selected it for the attack. He stopped the Rolling Thunder but all that did was permit the VC to reload. The was wasn't planned by the military.

            Reply

            1 Reply

            • 0%

              DoseASpinoza3 months, 1 week ago

              So you are saying that Bush made the same mistakes as Johnson: letting Osama go, taking the war from Afghanistan to Iraq, attacking willy-nilly (oops! post-2001 I mean whack-a-mole).

              He did learn one thing from Nixon alright, he made sure to clamp down on any truth before they could catch his spies subverting Congress and the will of the people. No wonder Bush has no time to negotiate with anyone but Sudan and Kim Jong-Il, he's spending all his time covering up and silencing his own administration.

              Reply
        • 0%

          sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

          BB - Bring China into the conflict??!! Are you crazy? Look what China did in the Korean War. Our forces lost!

          China has the largest standing military force in the world, well equipped, trained, and disciplined. And their logistical lines to Vietnam would be nothing compared to our supply problems. We would have to put in a force 5 to 10 times what it was to win that battle. Or use nuclear weapons.

          The purpose of our presence in Vietnam was not to unify the country by invading the north. It was simply to keep alive the supposed "democratic" government of South Vietnam and to keep the Communists in check.

          Some democracy! First Ngo Dinh Diem, then a whole succession of generals. Every single one corrupt to his eyeballs. At the end VP Nguyen Cao Ky escaped to (?)California. President Nguyen Van Thieu escaped to Taiwan w/ 2 planeloads of his loot

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            dissent3 months, 1 week ago

            "Bring China into the conflict??!!"

            eh, the vietnam war was a proxy war with china just like korea was. the communists it was supposes to keep in check was china

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

              Proxy wars are fine. That usually means we have to deal only with the smaller minions. In both Korea and Vietnam, it turns out we lost anyway. Think how much more difficult or even devastating if we actually had to face the Red Army in Vietnam

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                dissent3 months, 1 week ago

                that's why we went for korea and vietnam. smaller minions? yeah, we like smaller minions. fiesty little fellas though ;) look at iraq

                Reply
        • 0%

          Candida3 months, 1 week ago

          BB64: "Sun Tzu? Now why would you or Barrack claim he's read that book. Besides the obvious, it's a rather lengthy boring book for a liberal."

          You might be surprised at what liberals find interesting. Liberal = open mind.

          Reply
      • 0%

        dissent3 months, 1 week ago

        "It was the Khmer Rouge that brought peace to Vietnam, after we made a mess and left."

        eh, actually it was vietnam that ended the khmer rouge and brought peace to cambodia. our secret war in cambodia started a civil war when we backed a military coup that toppled a very popular prince. the khmer rouge took charge and started one of sickest chapters of the last century and millions died. it wouldn't have happened without us

        Reply

        1 Reply

        • 0%

          sinophil493 months, 1 week ago

          Dissent - I still remember the movie "The Killing Fields" which I rented quite a few years ago. Really sickening, but eye opening and compelling. For those too young to grasp the horrors of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, go rent it if you can still find it.

          Reply
    • 0%

      Grancher3 months, 1 week ago

      You know the Chinese invaded Vietnam just a few years after the Americans pulled out, and the French were beating on them before that. That poor country really got the short end of the stick, but they won.

      Reply

      6 Replies

      • 0%

        BB643 months, 1 week ago

        Not exactly. The Chinese tried invading and didn't do well. the Vietnamese won that fight. The traditional Chinese mass assault doesn't work well in the confines of jungle roads and trails. Try looking up the casualties. China doesn't talk much about that.

        Reply

        5 Replies

        • 0%

          Candida3 months, 1 week ago

          BB64: "mass assault doesn't work well in the confines of jungle roads and trails"

          What works against guerrilla warfare?

          Reply

          3 Replies

          • 0%

            tanglang3 months, 1 week ago

            Daisy Cutters.

            Reply

            2 Replies

            • 0%

              Candida3 months, 1 week ago

              What are they, and how do you use them when you don't know who the enemy is and where they are?

              Reply

              1 Reply

              • 0%

                bluetexasvalley3 months, 1 week ago

                Don't need to know about the enemy. Those bombs just wipe out everything in the area.

                Reply
        • 0%