Who Hates the USA?

[Figleaf]

looks kinda like a chimp

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

intellectually challenged

That's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award".

Is there some reason you changed the order of the quotes?

Your two intellectually challenged quotes are placed together, and separated from Ft. Niagara's accurate observation.

I can see that, but you didn't answer the question. Is there some reason for changing the order?

[jbg]

looks kinda like a chimp

"Who hates the U.S.A?"

GEORGE BUSH HATES THE U.S.A.

intellectually challenged

That's a candidate for "Understatement of the Year Award".

Is there some reason you changed the order of the quotes?

Your two intellectually challenged quotes are placed together, and separated from Ft. Niagara's accurate observation.

I can see that, but you didn't answer the question. Is there some reason for changing the order?

Your posts belonged joined together.

[weaponeer]

I have to admit I was a big GWB fan, but that has all changed.

In retrospect Bush will look better. He has presided over 6 years, so far, of relative prosperity, And I believe that sticking his head in the sand about Islamism would not have been a good response. We've tried that and it didn't work real well.

I agree going after the islamists was a great idea. Getting rid of saddam was also a good idea, I just disagree with how it was done. They did not use enough force to take Iraq, and they have let the very serious prob of Iran just sit and fester. Iran should be the prime target for the war on terror....

[jbg]

I agree going after the islamists was a great idea. Getting rid of saddam was also a good idea, I just disagree with how it was done. They did not use enough force to take Iraq, and they have let the very serious prob of Iran just sit and fester. Iran should be the prime target for the war on terror....

There's a learning curve for every new kind of struggle. The era of conventional wars, i.e. army vs. army, lasted thousands of years. Unconventional, guerrilla, asymetrical type wars became the order of the day after WW II. Now replace Communism with radical Islam, and the learning curve starts again.

One cannot fault Bush for not doing it perfectly the first time. Ditto with trying to create Arab democracy. It's never been tried, and the attempt, even in retrospect, was worthwhile. Too early to write it off yet.

[weaponeer]

I agree going after the islamists was a great idea. Getting rid of saddam was also a good idea, I just disagree with how it was done. They did not use enough force to take Iraq, and they have let the very serious prob of Iran just sit and fester. Iran should be the prime target for the war on terror....

There's a learning curve for every new kind of struggle. The era of conventional wars, i.e. army vs. army, lasted thousands of years. Unconventional, guerrilla, asymetrical type wars became the order of the day after WW II. Now replace Communism with radical Islam, and the learning curve starts again.

One cannot fault Bush for not doing it perfectly the first time. Ditto with trying to create Arab democracy. It's never been tried, and the attempt, even in retrospect, was worthwhile. Too early to write it off yet.

I just feel we really blew it going into Iraq. Not that we did it, but how. Too few troops to secure a country. It was a bad invasion plan, and the US military is paying the price for it. How to invade a country has been around for thousands of years, I cannot give GWB & the Administration a pass on that one.

However, I do agree with your other points. It takes time to learn to fight asymetric. No battle plan has ever survivied first contact with the enemy, I do understand that fully. Radical Islam is far more dangerous than Communism, most Communists did not want to die. The army vs army wars are not a thing of the past, they'll be back.

I just do not know what the answer in Iraq is?? You need more than 20K more to secure the country....

[jbg]

I just feel we really blew it going into Iraq. Not that we did it, but how. Too few troops to secure a country. It was a bad invasion plan, and the US military is paying the price for it. How to invade a country has been around for thousands of years, I cannot give GWB & the Administration a pass on that one.

Iraq is not Babylonia. It was a made-up group of British administrative provinces. That's it. It never was and never will be a nation.

The army vs army wars are not a thing of the past, they'll be back.

Maybe, but they'll be very very rare.

I just do not know what the answer in Iraq is?? You need more than 20K more to secure the country....

In retrospect, taken out Saddam and left. If the next leader was just as bad, as the Herman's Hermits once sang: "Second verse, same as the first, I'm Henry VIII I am...."

[weaponeer]

I just feel we really blew it going into Iraq. Not that we did it, but how. Too few troops to secure a country. It was a bad invasion plan, and the US military is paying the price for it. How to invade a country has been around for thousands of years, I cannot give GWB & the Administration a pass on that one.

Iraq is not Babylonia. It was a made-up group of British administrative provinces. That's it. It never was and never will be a nation.

I know, Iraq was a product of the colapse of the Turk Otto Empire after WW1. Still, the US went in without enough combat power to secure Iraq. I was attached to CENTCOM at the time, I know there were deep concerns about the number of troops going in.

The army vs army wars are not a thing of the past, they'll be back.

Maybe, but they'll be very very rare.

Insurgency warfare itself is nothing new. The Romans fought insurgents in Britania, Gaul and throughout the med. The US has fought insurgents before as well, against the Apache, Commanche etc... The Punative Expeditions into Mexico, in the Phillipines, and Vietnam. The American evolution started out as an insurgency. Army vs Army warfare is by no means dead, they will happen again. China is constructing a Blue water navy, complete with nuke subs, they already have an aircraft carrier. They have a substantial amphib capability also, you know, just in case you might want to visit the island next door:)

I just do not know what the answer in Iraq is?? You need more than 20K more to secure the country....

In retrospect, taken out Saddam and left. If the next leader was just as bad, as the Herman's Hermits once sang: "Second verse, same as the first, I'm Henry VIII I am...."

Perhaps that was the answer, take out saddam, cut & run, and come back again if need be, then cut & run.... No long occupations, just hit and get out.....

[ft.niagara]

I just feel we really blew it going into Iraq. Not that we did it, but how. Too few troops to secure a country. It was a bad invasion plan, and the US military is paying the price for it. How to invade a country has been around for thousands of years, I cannot give GWB & the Administration a pass on that one.

Why bother securing the country. Who cares if it is secure. Iraqis should be, but the US? And more troops? They are only more targets. More troops, more targets....Forget it. Less and less troops. You just need a foothold, token force. That way everybody wins. Not too expensive, not too many casualties, and did not cut and run.

[BornAlbertan]

Perhaps that was the answer, take out saddam, cut & run, and come back again if need be, then cut & run.... No long occupations, just hit and get out.....

And that would have done wonders for the global opinion on US foreign affairs. You single handedly leave a country in a state of anarchy and expect no backlash? Recruitment to terrorist organizations would skyrocket because civilians would envision an opportunity for revenge as hatred for the west would fuel their philosophies. Imagine the ease of recruitment groups like Al Qaeda would have then...

No. That was not the answer at all.

[ft.niagara]

And that would have done wonders for the global opinion on US foreign affairs. You single handedly leave a country in a state of anarchy and expect no backlash?

Backlash, from who? From all those who have done squat to help. And why is the US responsable for other people's conduct. Anarchy will not last forever, it is only temporary. And why is it worth any American lives to prevent anarchy in Iraq? They want a civil war, let them have it.

[guyser]

Backlash, from who? From all those who have done squat to help.

If you look at it from a business sense, there is a ton of backlash that "could" appear. That is a tenuous position to be in.

[Figleaf]

Your posts belonged joined together.

Next time you feel the urge to editorialize, you should avoid presenting your version as if you were quoting someone else. That way you won't be perpetrating a dishonesty.

[ft.niagara]

Backlash, from who? From all those who have done squat to help.

If you look at it from a business sense, there is a ton of backlash that "could" appear. That is a tenuous position to be in.

Strange, can't get out because Iraq isn't ready to let us out. Some undefined 'backlash' which 'could' appear. It sounds something like a threat. Strange.

[ft.niagara]

That way you won't be perpetrating a dishonesty.

Gosh, now there is forum criminality. Is there forum grand juries, and trials also? Maybe there are forum jails. Probably not. Just banishment, which is something akin to lethal injection.

[Figleaf]

That way you won't be perpetrating a dishonesty.

Gosh, now there is forum criminality. Is there forum grand juries, and trials also? Maybe there are forum jails. Probably not. Just banishment, which is something akin to lethal injection.

I'm not talking about 'criminality'. I'm talking about something apparently foreign to rightwing apologists -- integrity.

[wendy]

The world hates USA because their satanic leader is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people based on lies and a phoney war on terror.

[weaponeer]

Perhaps that was the answer, take out saddam, cut & run, and come back again if need be, then cut & run.... No long occupations, just hit and get out.....

And that would have done wonders for the global opinion on US foreign affairs. You single handedly leave a country in a state of anarchy and expect no backlash? Recruitment to terrorist organizations would skyrocket because civilians would envision an opportunity for revenge as hatred for the west would fuel their philosophies. Imagine the ease of recruitment groups like Al Qaeda would have then...

No. That was not the answer at all.

Actually it is the answer. Stop trying to be everybodies pal, let it be know, you pose a threat, we hit. Intel detects an AQ training/staging camp, in go the Spec Ops guys or airstrike "to clean up". Hit & run, works for the insurgents. You turn the tables on them, you find them, kill them, simple.

I frankly could care less about what someone in the mideast thinks about Canada or the US. We are the rich nations of the world, we are the countries everybody wants to come to live in, to be like. No too many folks lined up to imigrate to Yeman. You want to be our friend, fine, you want to be our enemy, that's find too, but you'll pay a heavy price. That's called "backbone", which is seriously lacking in the west.......

[ft.niagara]

Hit & run, works for the insurgents. You turn the tables on them, you find them, kill them, simple.

That's called "backbone", which is seriously lacking in the west.......

Here Here.

The problem is something like Clinton's asprin factory. The insurgents are like thugs who go around making trouble, and go back to the ghetto. They have an advantage over the big advanced country. The US has made some people around the world 'disappear', and has done alot of assassinations with drones. I guess they can start making families disappear also. Actually, I think the US has shown alot of backbone, but it can not stop a civil war especially when there is no problem with resupply, for them.

[ft.niagara]

The world hates USA because their satanic leader is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people based on lies and a phoney war on terror.

The depth of your input is astounding. Keep up the good work little girl.

[Drea]

The world hates USA because their satanic leader is murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people based on lies and a phoney war on terror.

The depth of your input is astounding. Keep up the good work little girl.

Truth hurts Ft.

America sucks in 2007.

Face it.

Do something about it -- don't deny it for pete sake!

[guyser]

Strange, can't get out because Iraq isn't ready to let us out. Some undefined 'backlash' which 'could' appear. It sounds something like a threat. Strange.

Dont be looking for something that is not there . It merely means that US business' has interests the world over.

No threat, no strange.

[bush_cheney2004]

Dont be looking for something that is not there . It merely means that US business' has interests the world over.

No threat, no strange.

Yea..."US businesses" like Iron Horse Oil & Gas! LOL!

[guyser]

Yea..."US businesses" like Iron Horse Oil & Gas! LOL!

And Iron Horse has what to do with this?

[jbg]

Truth hurts Ft.

America sucks in 2007.

Face it.

Do something about it -- don't deny it for pete sake!

How profound? And what type of neighbor for country that's strangled its military would you have on a 5000 km border? Chad? Sudan? Rwanda? Syria? Venezuela?

[Drea]

Awwww Jb, are your feelings hurt?

I said America sucks -- how does that have anything to do with them being our neighbour? Lots of other places suck too -- America USED TO NOT suck. Sucks now. Sucks to be you.

sorry.... couldn't resist LOL

I don't give a rat's patooey if America's "feelings" are hurt.

Maybe, just friggin' maybe the American people will finally turn off American Idol and do something.

I doubt it though.