Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Vice-President Cheney gets it right

  1. #21
    TMahoney
    Guest
    [QUOTE]Correction: The Bush administration shouldn't have to be spending their time defending the decision to go to war - the bipartisan support was based on bipartisan intelligence.[/QUOTE]

    Sackdance, politics are politics, and when your policies are even a rousing success there will be opposition from the opposite party. I don't understand why Republicans are so pissed, its clear to everyone that what the Democrats are doing right now is too little too late. Its merely politics. Just don't let them bait you into an arguement because they issue is already decided.

    [QUOTE]Carl - which strategy would you change? And to what?

    Aren't we winning? Iraq has a constitution, elections. Its not perfect, but then what is?

    I'm going to take a guess how you'll answer and ask this: who do you think has it better - the people of Iraq or North Korea?[/QUOTE]

    Listen, I'm 19 and not in the white house, so I can't sit here and lay a comprehensive strategy involving all the branches of the military. But from what I see right now, Free-Iraqi Leaders are being assasinated, local tribal war lords are running the day to day in Iraq when the Americans leave to go on to the next town. We're taking a half assed approach.

    We have to take control of the country in order to give it back to the Iraqis in good shape. We need marshall law and curfews with more American troops on the ground there so we can expedite the process and maintain order while we help the Iraqis install their government. Nobody benefits from Chaos.

    See but this is merely my opinon on what we should do, though wouldn't you agree that how we're fighting the war now isn't working?

    I don't believe you ditch a war because its not being fought well, but you do have to change your strategy.

    [QUOTE]No, this is wrong. The critics' arguments do not come from principle, but from politics. This statement above is based on a flawed assumption.

    The Democrats are making attacks against Bush's character. I agree, it is one thing to criticise the prosecution of the war and the mistakes made therein, it is QUITE ANOTHER thing to accuse Bush of lying to begin the war. Bush should defend himself from such slurs and yes, the GOP is 100% correct to lambast the Democrats for their shameful, indefensible slurs. They are the ones lying, not Bush. These Democrats mostly voted for the war and ostensibly want to win it, yet by lying about and slandering Bush for lying to start the war, they undermine it completely and make success more difficult. Bluntly, they care more about damaging Bush politically than winning the war that they voted for. This is horrible and is yet another clear indiciation to me that I can never vote for a Democrat nationally, not ever. They are children, not leaders.

    Your assumption that the critics would be silenced if we start winning the war is naive and not grounded in reality. I am also unpersuaded that we are "losing" the war presently, but that is a whole 'nother thread entirely. The critics lack the integrity necessary to be that honest, period.[/QUOTE]

    Jets5ever, you are right but I think you are mad for the wrong reasons. Its not the democrats who are doing this, its politics. This is how American Politics work. Its disgusting but its reality. The issues are rarely talked about by candidates, its more of a "This is what you did wrong, and I have 20/20 hindsight to look at your decision and say I would've done this instead".

    Both sides are guilty of this. When the war started, if you differed in opinion, many staunch conservatives were taking harsh shots at those who voted against the war saying they were "unpatriotic, not true Americans". These people simply disagreed, what are country was founded on and you have people calling them unAmerican for simply doing something wholly American which is to question the government.

    Its politics, and its ugly, just don't let them draw you in, just sit back and think about the issues.

    [QUOTE]I too like McCain for a number of reasons- the problem is the same people condeming the war now are those who voted for it three years ago....[/QUOTE]

    Yes, but even many democrats are laughing at how their party simply having a temper tantrum that should have been an outrage 3 years ago. Jon Stewart made jokes saying "Where were you in 2002?"
    Its only the guys in office trying to play to public opinon.
    Last edited by CarlSpackler; 11-18-2005 at 03:44 PM.

  2. #22
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=CarlSpackler]


    Jets5ever, you are right but I think you are mad for the wrong reasons. Its not the democrats who are doing this, its politics. This is how American Politics work. Its disgusting but its reality. The issues are rarely talked about by candidates, its more of a "This is what you did wrong, and I have 20/20 hindsight to look at your decision and say I would've done this instead".

    Both sides are guilty of this. When the war started, if you differed in opinion, many staunch conservatives were taking harsh shots at those who voted against the war saying they were "unpatriotic, not true Americans". These people simply disagreed, what are country was founded on and you have people calling them American for simply doing something wholly American which is to question the government.

    Its politics, and its ugly, just don't let them draw you in, just sit back and think about the issues.


    [/QUOTE]

    I appreciate your thoughtful post. I think your are over-simplfying a bit, but appreciate your sentiments. There is wisdom in what you say, however, I cannot chalk up the recent comments by many Democrats as "politics as usual" - I think they go way beyond acceptable (even by today's low standards) rhetoric.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]what amazes me is how people, specifically liberals, think war is an exact science; you have a plan, you execute the plan then- voila! it's over...

    NFL teams can't execute simple game plans on Sunday never mind 150K troops on foriegn soil...

    6/6/44 was considered one of America's greatest military victories [/QUOTE]

    this is not a war. It's an occupation. There is no opposing army to fight. There are no captials to take, no generals to kill, no flags to change. We can't compare WWII which was a formally declared war that had feasible goals with this "war" that has no clear signpost for victory. In WWII when the German Armies were defeated the war was over. That was the goal. What is the goal here? TO find WMD? Uh... er... um... i guess that ship has sailed.

    What do you suggest? What is the goal?

    We can't wage war endlessly for generations "until terrorism stops" - it's not a realistic option and there's no guaruntee it will work.

    Warfish to answer your question if we pull out and Iraq falls into chaos I would honestly not be bothered by it. It is an inevitable outcome, no matter how long we stay there. We could be there the next 100 years, pull out in year 101 and by year 102 there would be some caveman zealot in charge cutting people's hands off. That's the nature of the Middle East, we are egotistical to believe we can change that by giving them the right to vote.

    FYI Iraq is in chaos right now. Unemployment is over 60%. Many lack clean water. Reliable power is a myth. Women are wearing burkas for the first time in 30 years. Iraqis die by the bushel every day. It is not a stretch to say things were better under Saddam for these people.

    Not that I think it's the US's job to improve Iraqi's lives. Hey I got an idea no one's tried yet how about improving AMERICAN'S lives for a change?
    Last edited by bitonti; 11-18-2005 at 03:50 PM.

  4. #24
    "this is not a war. It's an [B]occupation[/B]. We can't compare WWII which was a formally declared war that had goals with this "war" that has no clear signpost for victory. In WWII when the German Armies were defeated the war was over. That was the goal."

    Common Sense 101. Good point, bit.

  5. #25
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=AlbanyJet]"this is not a war. It's an [B]occupation[/B]. We can't compare WWII which was a formally declared war that had goals with this "war" that has no clear signpost for victory. In WWII when the German Armies were defeated the war was over. That was the goal."

    Common Sense 101. Good point, bit.[/QUOTE]

    Really? So we left Germany in 1945 and went home? I didn't realize that.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Really? So we left Germany in 1945 and went home? I didn't realize that.[/QUOTE]

    how many American soldiers were dying on a daily basis after 1945?

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=bitonti]this is not a war. It's an occupation. There is no opposing army to fight. There are no captials to take, no generals to kill, no flags to change. We can't compare WWII which was a formally declared war that had feasible goals with this "war" that has no clear signpost for victory. In WWII when the German Armies were defeated the war was over. That was the goal. What is the goal here? TO find WMD? Uh... er... um... i guess that ship has sailed.

    What do you suggest? What is the goal?

    We can't wage war endlessly for generations "until terrorism stops" - it's not a realistic option and there's no guaruntee it will work.

    Warfish to answer your question if we pull out and Iraq falls into chaos I would honestly not be bothered by it. It is an inevitable outcome, no matter how long we stay there. We could be there the next 100 years, pull out in year 101 and by year 102 there would be some caveman zealot in charge cutting people's hands off. That's the nature of the Middle East, we are egotistical to believe we can change that by giving them the right to vote.

    FYI Iraq is in chaos right now. Unemployment is over 60%. Many lack clean water. Reliable power is a myth. Women are wearing burkas for the first time in 30 years. Iraqis die by the bushel every day. It is not a stretch to say things were better under Saddam for these people.

    Not that I think it's the US's job to improve Iraqi's lives. Hey I got an idea no one's tried yet how about improving AMERICAN'S lives for a change?[/QUOTE]

    its' ironic how quickly you contradict yourself as, when trying to compare this to other actions in a previous post your comment was "America has not fared well in these wars"....

    As far as "your Iraq is in chaos now" like the rest of the libs you subscribe to they were much better off under Hussien......correct?? Oh, that's right- the media never covered the mass murders, payoffs to terrorists, etc so I didn't matter back then....

  8. #28
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]how many American soldiers were dying on a daily basis after 1945?[/QUOTE]

    Hundreds were killed or wounded during the next three years, during sporadic guerilla warfare in Germany. Look it up.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE][B]As far as "your Iraq is in chaos now" like the rest of the libs you subscribe to they were much better off under Hussien......correct?? Oh, that's right- the media never covered the mass murders, payoffs to terrorists, etc so I didn't matter back then....[/B][/QUOTE]

    Were they better off with Hussein? We dont know the answer to that yet. It depends on what kind of country is formed. Would a theocratic Islamic nation with good relations with Iran be considered better? I dont think so. We will learn the answer to this in the next 50 years or so.

    [B]As for the mass murders:[/B]
    - the majority occured in the 1980s under Reagan/Bush. Saddam was killing of the [U]Shias[/U]. We were supplying him with the weopans. We thought it ok then b/c he was fighting Iran and as far as Reagan/Bush was concerned, we could look the other way . After all the Iraq Shia were aligned with Iran, so why should we care.
    - the second round of mass murders came when we abandoned the Kurdish rebellion under Papa Bush.


    [B]As for payoffs to terrorists[/B]

    The only terrorists he gave payoffs to were to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Last I checked, the Palestinians never attacked us. Also, last I checked, Saudi Arabia and most of the kingdoms of the Gulf Coast also gave money to the same cause. So , I guess thats why we ignored it.

  10. #30
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=kennyo7]Were they better off with Hussein? We dont know the answer to that yet. It depends on what kind of country is formed. Would a theocratic Islamic nation with good relations with Iran be considered better? I dont think so. We will learn the answer to this in the next 50 years or so.

    [B]As for the mass murders:[/B]
    - the majority occured in the 1980s under Reagan/Bush. Saddam was killing of the [U]Shias[/U]. We were supplying him with the weopans. We thought it ok then b/c he was fighting Iran and as far as Reagan/Bush was concerned, we could look the other way . After all the Iraq Shia were aligned with Iran, so why should we care.
    - the second round of mass murders came when we abandoned the Kurdish rebellion under Papa Bush.


    [B]As for payoffs to terrorists[/B]



    The only terrorists he gave payoffs to were to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Last I checked, the Palestinians never attacked us. Also, last I checked, Saudi Arabia and most of the kingdoms of the Gulf Coast also gave money to the same cause. So , I guess thats why we ignored it.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, so all of Saddam's misdeeds were America's fault? Got it.

    Iraq's terror ties are far deeper than that, you know this, Kenny.

  11. #31
    Deleted....read more better some time DOH!

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Warfish to answer your question if we pull out and Iraq falls into chaos I would honestly not be bothered by it. It is an inevitable outcome, no matter how long we stay there. We could be there the next 100 years, pull out in year 101 and by year 102 there would be some caveman zealot in charge cutting people's hands off. That's the nature of the Middle East, we are egotistical to believe we can change that by giving them the right to vote.

    FYI Iraq is in chaos right now. Unemployment is over 60%. Many lack clean water. Reliable power is a myth. Women are wearing burkas for the first time in 30 years. Iraqis die by the bushel every day. It is not a stretch to say things were better under Saddam for these people.

    Not that I think it's the US's job to improve Iraqi's lives. Hey I got an idea no one's tried yet how about improving AMERICAN'S lives for a change?[/QUOTE]

    That sounds great.....until you realize that you've never given an actual ANSWER to the problem of Islamo-Facist terrorism. It's all well and good to say "screw them", but that doesn't stop them from waging war (and yes Bit, it may not be a war to you, but it sure is to them) against us.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE][B]Iraq's terror ties are far deeper than that, you know this, Kenny.[/B[/QUOTE]]

    No they are not. Thats part of the problem. Please dont tell me about Stephen Hayes or some other Right Wing investigation using uncoonfirmed information or some source whos info is not reliable. The DOD alsready debunked Hayes' source for much of what he wrote.

    [QUOTE][B]Oh, so all of Saddam's misdeeds were America's fault? Got it.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Of course they were not our fault. But even you have to admit that there is something wrong with using his mass murders as a justification for war when we were ok with it while it was happening 20 years ago. There is something hypocritical about that.

  14. #34
    [QUOTE=Warfish]That sounds great.....until you realize that you've never given an actual ANSWER to the problem of Islamo-Facist terrorism. It's all well and good to say "screw them", but that doesn't stop them from waging war (and yes Bit, it may not be a war to you, but it sure is to them) against us.[/QUOTE]

    I have an answer, but no one seriously wants to consider it. Leave the middle east to their own devices and create fortress America.

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Hundreds were killed or wounded during the next three years, during sporadic guerilla warfare in Germany. Look it up.[/QUOTE]

    that's interesting. Still - if we consider the trend our wounded/killed in Iraq are going up not down. The Iraqi soldier/civilian numbers are climbing off the charts. By the numbers things aren't getting better.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=bitonti]that's interesting. Still - if we consider the trend our wounded/killed in Iraq are going up not down. The Iraqi soldier/civilian numbers are climbing off the charts. By the numbers things aren't getting better.[/QUOTE]

    True enough. I am just pointing out that there are a lot of misconceptions about WWII, is all.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us