Bush Adminisration Dosen't Care About Troops

[righturnonred]

rightturnonred, when I criticize something about someone else, and then you argue with me about something he said, I have no choice but to assume you have endorsed his assertions and are attempting to defend his reasoning.

Where did I ever argue with you about, or endorse Nuclear's comments? You were simply unclear about whether your comments were related to Nuclear's statement, or in context to the war on terror in general.

This was my first and only response related to Nuclear's comments:

There are obviously idiots on both sides, but you can rest easy with the knowledge that the idiots on the left are far greater in number, intensity, and vocality.

In your next post you said this, in which is was unclear of the context in which you made the statement.

And I find no difference between the U.S., Nazi Germany, or Russia if such power is egregiously misused.

I asked you to clarify the context of your statement:

Are you speaking hypothetically (as in reference to Nuclear's comment), or do you consider this war of liberation (in general) to be an egregious misuse of power on behalf of the coalition?

To which you replied:

If the U.S. goes on a killing spree of 1000 Iraqi families (which include possibly innocent women and infants) for every American soldier dead, that is flagrant abuse of power, equated with governments like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Unio

To which I responded:

This means you're speaking hypothetically, in which case you have no argument from me.

In other words, his comment was obviously stupid and not represenative of conservatives in large.

That is why I am confused at this statement:

rightturnonred, when I criticize something about someone else, and then you argue with me about something he said, I have no choice but to assume you have endorsed his assertions and are attempting to defend his reasoning

How in the hell, may I ask, are you able to extract from this exchange, my support for Nuclear's comments?

This ought to be good.

Proof? Look at the current situation in Iraq, the basis for Nuclear's prosposal.

What proof? Just because some desperate insurgents are having moderate success at mucking up our efforts there is not evidence the that global strategy for the war on terror is a failure. I believe you are projecting a manufactured reality, similar in fashion to the way

you have attempted to associated Nuclear's comments with every other conservative in this tread.

[FastNed]

I understand exactly where Nuclear came from in his comment: it was an understandable human response to others killing our people. I am rather more direct - injure or kill me or mine and 10 to 1, a thousand to one doesn't hack it; each and every enemy has invited a death sentence. Leave no live enemy behind. Works for me, and ICCL what world opinion thinks - if, as and when those 'opinion' holders are willing to stand shield between the enemy and my people, I will listen to them but not until. And please note I used the term 'enemy' not women, children and babes in arms!

Nuclear has no great knowledge of counter-insurgency tactics because such slaughter is a one time final approach, not an effective interim policy. Over the weekend, we have seen the beginning of a directed intense counter-insurgency response. In non-Sunni areas, we are being inundated with intelligence info on non–Iraqi groups suspected of involvement in such attacks. The Iraqis are PO'd and are turning these people in where-ever possible.

The Sunni triangle is about to become a "War Zone" with all that entails. Expect attacks against Americans to have a stiff cost - but not random slaughter, that's not the American way unless or until we determine it is them or us. Should American's become enraged, fear the response of the American Street.

[Mr Farrius]

How in the hell, may I ask, are you able to extract from this exchange, my support for Nuclear's comments?

So in other words, you were off topic. I was referring to Nuclear's proposal, and you couldn't resist making an asinine comment about the idiocy of the left. I in error, assumed you were contributing to the discussion. My mistake.

My idea of the United States isn't one that remains stagnant and peaceful. If the U.S. is attacked, it must retaliate, and rightfully so. However, the U.S. charged headlong into Iraq to fight a war that evidently can't be won. It must accept the consequences. It is the administration's fault for not developing an effective occupational strategy. To take the blame and put it on someone else for your mistake lacks integrity and morality. Obviously there are going to be guerillas constantly killing and shooting American soldiers. Now I know this is extremely hard to imagine with the burning patriotism people on this forum express, but if the entire United States became occupied by an enemy nation, would YOU just sit there and watch? I don't think so. You cannot expect people that you have conquered to be submissive unless you would do so yourself in the same situation. You cannot embark on a mass slaughter campaign to kill people who feel that you are the intruder. The casualties resulting from guerrillas are to be expected; it's a part of war. It is the administration's fault for not developing a better plan. Or is it something else? Fill me in.

FastNed, I automatically included women and children because Nuclear referred to families.

[righturnonred]

Your out of your mind, Farrius. I could not have been more clear in what I've said. I've been tactfully attempting to move the topic of discussion back to something of relavence. Instead, you insist on indulging your obsession with Nuclear's comment and argueing with others about it as if anyone disagrees with you that the comment was irresponsible. So, for the last time, can we please move on?

It is the administration's fault for not developing an effective occupational strategy

I'll ask again, what should the administration have done to improve the situation. I ask not with the expectation that you can provide a superior plan, but rather because you, lacking any knowledge or expertise as to what it takes to effectively administer an occupation, are not in an appropriate position to make a judgement about the relative effectiveness of the occupation.

Granted, the occupation is obviously not going as smoothly as we would like, but what basis of comparison are you using to determine that the occupation is "failing".

I believe that you, along with many Americans, suffer from Vietnam Syndrome, an irresistible propensity to demand immediate results in a military operation accompanied by a complete lack of resolve to accept any US casualities at all. Do you realize that at the height of the Vietnam War, the US was losing 500 soldiers per week?

if the entire United States became occupied by an enemy nation, would YOU just sit there and watch?

No I wouldn't. If I was an Iraqi who had felt the heavy weight of Saddam's boot on my neck for so many years, I would be clamoring to help the liberating force. Unless ofcourse, I got the impression from foreign media that the resolve of the liberating force could be shaken. In that case, I might be reluctant to assist the occupiers out of fear of retaliation on the part of the old regime if they ever managed to regain power.

[Mr Farrius]

Do you realize that at the height of the Vietnam War, the US was losing 500 soldiers per week?

See, that's just the thing. The war in Iraq isn't Vietnam, and never will be in any way. Which is why so many Americans are wondering why the administration (the ones who have responsibility) isn't doing anything about it. The Vietnam analogy is a faulty comparison. Most of the casualties in Vietnam resulted from an American attempt to win the battles. The battles in Iraq are won. The actual war is over. It's just occupation now. Like you said, that's not going as smoothly as America would like, which is a problem, though it shouldn't really be a problem at all. See the irony?

[righturnonred]

The war in Iraq isn't Vietnam

You're right. Although there are similarities, in most every conventional sense, the conflict in Iraq shares little in common with the war in Vietnam. However, I made the comparison to illustrate the origins of "Vietnam Syndrome" which has applied to all American military conflicts since. In this respect, the comparison is very much valid.

Most of the casualties in Vietnam resulted from an American attempt to win the battles

Vietnam represented the birth of wide scale guerilla warfare tactics. Ambushes, booby traps, and civilian dressed combatants were the prime tactics used by the Vietcong to wage an unconventional war against a superior force. Divisional engagements during the war were rare. In fact, the Iraqi occupation bares a greater resemblence to Vietnam than it does the 1991 gulf war in which divisional engagements such as the battles of 73 Easting and Madina Ridge were center pieces of that war. It's clear you have little knowledge of the history of warfare in Vietnam.

While the US didn't technicaly lose the Vietnam war, we did tuck our tails an run. Why? One Word: Politics.

The actual war is over

Major combat operations are over. The war is far from.

though it shouldn't really be a problem at all

To say the insurgency "shouldn't be a problem" doesn't make sense. Unlike with Japan and Germany following WWII, the Baath regime never formally surendured at the cease of major combat operations. Instead, like cowards, they chose to blend back into society and continue to wage their war from under the skirts of women, which consequently, was Saddam's intent from the beginning should his government fall. While the intensity of the anticipated insurgency was unpredictable before the war, there was no doubt that such an insurgency would exist in some form.

What historical precident or bank of knowledge are you drawing from that allows you to make the unequivocal determination that the war is unwinnable?

Only someone so eager to see us fail would jump to such a conclusion.

See the irony?

No, I don't

[Mr Farrius]

Vietnam represented the birth of wide scale guerilla warfare tactics.  Ambushes, booby traps, and civilian dressed combatants were the prime tactics used by the Vietcong to wage an unconventional war against a superior force.  Divisional engagements during the war were rare.  In fact, the Iraqi occupation bares a greater resemblence to Vietnam than it does the 1991 gulf war in which divisional engagements such as the battles of 73 Easting and Madina Ridge were center pieces of that war. It's clear you have little knowledge of the history of warfare in Vietnam.

It is clear that you have digressed, and misunderstood the point. The U.S. never occupied all of Vietnam. The U.S. however is occupying all of Iraq at present. Big difference.

[KrustyKidd]

I thought that the Left had declared that Afganistan would be America's new Vietnam. Wish they would make up their minds.

[righturnonred]

It is clear that you have digressed

I have not digressed from the topic at hand. I have tried legitimately to defend against your criticism of my explanation of the historical origins of "Vietnam Syndome". I have also appropriately challenged your ignorance regarding combat losses in Vietnam.

It appears to be you rather, who are avoiding the subtantive issues here and instead are focusing on such irrelevent minutia as whether or not Vietnam resembles Iraq closely enough to be valid for the purposes of my argument.

The U.S. never occupied all of Vietnam. The U.S. however is occupying all of Iraq at present. Big difference.

Yes, but why is this relavent to "Vietnam Syndrome"?

Maybe the problem here is your understanding of the term "Vietnam Syndrome": This is defined a dangerous reluctance on the part of American leaders, since the Vietnam war, to commit US ground forces to a potentially harzardous situation for fear of political fall out in the even of a relatively small number of American deaths.

It does not matter how logistically similar a given conflict is to Vietnam. The only factor that matters is the potential for losses.

and [you have] misunderstood the point

I think you've failed to make one.

[Mr Farrius]

I think you've failed to make one.

I protest! The honor must be given to you. Literally all you have asserted was that the administration was doing a good job and that some liberals have Vietnam syndrome. Perhaps I may be allowed to ask, is it truly your opinion that the current situation in Iraq (the one that most of the world opposes) is not bound to go down the drain anyway? I mean when most of the world opposes you...

[righturnonred]

I protest!

Liberals loooove to protest.

Literally all you have asserted was that the administration was doing a good job and that some liberals have Vietnam syndrome.

Not exactly, but thats pretty close.

What I suggest is that Iraq is neither a failure nor a success at this point and it is premature to make a determination either way. As for this adminstration, I don't think they have done a bad job with the occupation. It is a situation of trial and error, as there is really no historical precident to be guided by. In answer to your question, no, I don't think the situation is bound to "go down the drain", however it may get worst before it gets better.

Now, with all sincerity, I would like you to tell me why you feel that reconstruction is ultimately doomed to failure?

[KrustyKidd]

I mean when most of the world opposes you...

Then better to just give up. After all, the world is flat, the earth circles around the sun and moon, Hitler is a good guy, Star Wars doesn't work, and I should have stayed working in that factory as a welder ten years ago.

Get lost, no sorry. Don't. Just keep doing what you always do, that's safer, and let's those who want to progress to rise to the top easier.

A simple refutation; The world has to change, food wise you cannot feed the population without distribution. Dictators prohibit distribution and enact deliberate starvation as a way of maintaining power. You endorse this? God, you are more violent than you let on.

Peace through planetartry starvation, as long as it isn't the University crowd.

[Mr Farrius]

I fully support your claim that the world needs to change. I definitely do not endorse any crimes against humanity, such as starvation. I do not endorse dictators and what they do. I do not endorse their corrupt governments.

Perhaps I was not referring to those nations.

[liberalman]

Not since the days of the Teapot Dome scandal has an administration and a political party worked so hard to use tax money - our money - to pay off campaign contributors and cronies from their days in private corporations. Now I know that is strong language but these are times when one must be not just aware of the crooked nature of our right wing government but also willing to do what the mainstream media is unable or to afraid to do. And that is to tell the truth.

We have all heard the tales of war profiteering going on in Iraq by companies who received no bid, sweetheart deals in the smoke filled back rooms of the GOP controlled White House and Congress. We all know about Halliburton, Dick “the sneak” Cheney’s old company and how they have received preferential treatment and no-bid/no-competition contracts. I remember well watching in slack-jawed, stunned disbelief as WorldCom (a firm who in ENRON-like fashion committed outright fraud here at home) was still awarded contracts worth billions by the Bush Cartel for jobs they had neither the expertise nor the manpower to fulfill.

But should I really be surprised? After all, this is the age of the corporations vs. common sense. And who better to lead the dance into oblivion than an unelected President quite content to dance to whatever piper plays the richest tune? Now Mr. Bush (like most if not all Republican politicians) promised time and time again before he was (not) elected that he would bring ethics and morals to the White House and the presidency. But as time marches on Mr. Bush’s ethics march right on past him as bribes, kickbacks and cronyism do the Texas two-step into public policy.

According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Bush administration has strongly favored cronies and campaign contributors in awarding reconstruction contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Center devoted six months and over 70 Freedom of Information Act Requests to get to the bottom of the crony quagmire Mr. Bush has gotten us into.

The conclusion of the report, "Windfalls of War," is that a clear quid pro quo exists between government procurement and campaign contributions to George W. Bush. Charles Lewis, the group's executive director, released a statement arguing that the report reveals "a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

But this is old news to anyone who has paid even the smallest trace of attention to the goings on overseas. Now I know, all of you right-wingers are going to start your crybaby call that the media doesn’t show the good things that are going on over there and that is why things have looked so bad. But in all honesty save that crap for the Fox News-watching zombies you call family because there is no good news in Iraq except for those who bought their little slice of happiness by becoming a “pioneer” on the Bush/Cheney/DeLay wagon train to hell - oops I mean reelection campaign.

Now you think what I just told you was as bad as it could get don't cha? Well get ready for disappointment my friend, because it’s not just Bush who has his hand in this mess. It’s the whole damn Republican party. You know who I'm talking about, the party that is so good for the economy and fiscal responsibility that they have spent us into a record deficits even as they cut taxes for the rich. That’s right folks. The party that screams moral responsibility and showers all nonbelievers with epithets of fire, brimstone and eternal damnation has decided that language that would have meant hard jail time for war profiteering needed to be stripped from the recent 87 billion dollars the Bush administration asked for the continued occupation of Iraq. Forget the fact that Halliburton is already overcharging the American PUBLIC (it is, after all, our money) millions to transport gas to Iraq. Forget that we are seeing the policies of the Reagan years rehashed to allow military contractors to overcharge for simple hammers and toilet seats. According to the GOP/Whitehouse we don't need any oversight of OUR money once it leaves the country and enters the coffers of campaign contributors.

Of course, the reasoning behind cutting the language has been hidden behind the closed door government of the Republican majority but I think I can shed a little light on this subject for you. You see the language that was cut would have levied huge fines and punished those convicted of war profiteering with up to 20 years in prison. Now the last thing the Right wants to do is establish parity in the legal system for rich and poor. After all, the wealthy have a long tradition in this country of buying their way out of trouble that would otherwise see them sharing a cell for twenty years with the ex-welfare mom sentenced to hard time for shoplifting from the local Walmart where she doesn’t make enough working 40 hours a week to pay for food and/or childcare.

So let’s recap here. The Bush/GOP political machine is happily ripping off the American people as they hide behind flag waving, patriotic idiots too stupid to realize that the moral man they are propping up is a scoundrel of the worst sort. Yup folks, we deserve what we get, although I still don't think we'll get what we paid for.

Now, can I say I am surprised that the party of big business has sold us out lock, stock and two smoking barrels to the corporations that put them in office? Of course I can’t.

Thats all here. This is Liberalman telling you to write your congressperson and raise a little hell.

Peace

Liberalman

[email protected]

[righturnonred]

I'm speechless. All I can say is... Wow! You sound unmistakably like Ted Kennedy in a druken stupor speaking on the Senate floor, red face and all.

You exemplify perfectly why the Democrats are a dying breed in this country. Your hysteria and paranoia are palpable. You seriously believe what you say, don't you, all this drivel about cronyism, unelected president, mainstream media unable or afraid, tax cuts for the rich? Come on.

When was the last time you picked up a newspaper? If any of this crap you've conjured where actually taking place, the "fearful" media would latch on to it like a gang of sharks reacting to the smell of blood.

Economic recovery in full swing, Taliban gone, Saddam gone, 2/3 of Al Qaeda leadership killed or captured, no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11. It just irratates the hell out of you liberals that this president has been a resounding success. Dems are loosing govenerships left and right, and are going to experience heavy Senate losses in the South come congressional elections.

Frankly, I can't say I feel sorry for ya. As a matter of fact, it's gonna feel real good to rake the liberals over the coals in the comming months and years.

This is Liberalman telling you to write your congressperson and raise a little hell.

I've been trying hard to contact McDermott but his secretary keeps giving me the same old line, that he's too busy assembling car bombs for Iraqi insurgents.

[Black Dog]

I'm speechless. All I can say is... Wow! You sound unmistakably like Ted Kennedy in a druken stupor speaking on the Senate floor, red face and all.

And yet you don't bother countering a single point. typical neocon: why argue with the issues when you can head straight for the personal attacks.

You exemplify perfectly why the Democrats are a dying breed in this country. Your hysteria and paranoia are palpable. You seriously believe what you say, don't you, all this drivel about cronyism, unelected president, mainstream media unable or afraid, tax cuts for the rich? Come on.

I can't figure out, dispite all the dots in front of your face, why the lieks of you are incapable of connecting them.

When was the last time you picked up a newspaper? If any of this crap you've conjured where actually taking place, the "fearful" media would latch on to it like a gang of sharks reacting to the smell of blood.

When was the last time you picked up a newspaper? This stuff is out there, but whenever ity appears, you and yours whine, cry and haul out the old "liberal media bias" chestnut. That said, just because it ain't getting reported, doesn't mean it's not happening.

Economic recovery in full swing, Taliban gone, Saddam gone, 2/3 of Al Qaeda leadership killed or captured, no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

Unemployment not budging, Taliban regaining strength, Saddam and Osama still at large. Oh and there were no terroist attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9-11 either, so what's your point.

[righturnonred]

And yet you don't bother countering a single point. typical neocon: why argue with the issues when you can head straight for the personal attacks.

There's no personal attack there, not if you're an admirer of Ted Kennedy.

It's all been said. Look, this guy comes to this forum and posts an endless rant covering every topic under the sun, contributing absolutely nothing to the discussion here. And, by the way, I thought I did counter some points, just as you countered mine but i'm not going waste my time reposting economic reports and CIA memos for the benefit of this guy.

I can't figure out, dispite all the dots in front of your face, why the lieks of you are incapable of connecting them

I have no trouble connecting the dots in front of us, it's just that my picture turned out drastically different from yours. While we both see 5 dots in a ring, I draw a pentagon while you draw a star. My interpretation is simple, rudamentary. While yours is unneccessarily complicated, and requires a slight stretch of the imagination.

Unemployment not budging

Not true.

Economists Predict Strong Growth in '04

Taliban regaining strength

Please, the Taliban are not coming back.

Saddam and Osama still at large.

Well come on, lets get em.

Oh and there were no terroist attacks on U.S. soil prior to 9-11 either

What about WTC 1993? What about middle east links to Oklahoma City. What about the terrorist cells that have been broken and attack plots that have been thwarted since 9/11?

[KrustyKidd]

My fav is Bush giving rebuilding contracts to his cronies. It would be pretty silly if he gave them to his enemies, our enemies, people who were against the war, people who are against rebuilding Iraq and installing democracy now wouldn't it?

I have an idea, find some companies that are not American, were pro liberation, and not tied to any country that is working against the US. Comon, anybody using this as some sort of argument give us some names.

Furthermore, if I became president, should I help those who helped me win or those who were opposed to me becoming president? I think I would favor those who helped. I would certainly try to give contracts to all however, if there wasn't enough to go around then those who worked against me can have the crumbs

[righturnonred]

One of the most important points to be made here is:

If not Haliburton, then who?