| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Tom Friedman's Free Advice to the G.O.P | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 23 2003, 05:51 PM (897 Views) | |
| Wichita | Oct 24 2003, 06:46 AM Post #31 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
And what you seem - or choose - not to acknowledge is that people in this thread have asked - repeatedly - for you to tell them a better alternative. Or for you to list even one person who has suggested a better alternative. Your response: Not what what Bush is doing. Well, if you think what you see now is a "dangerous, disorganized mess", you can't even conceive how "dangerous and disorganized" the situation would be if we follow your suggested course of action - which appears to be "anything and everything else". I am disappointed that we couldn't actually discuss this question. As long as you hold to Friedman's view that anyone who doesn't agree with you, isn't thinking, it will most likely be impossible. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 24 2003, 07:15 AM Post #32 |
|
Unregistered
|
Don't be disappointed, Wichita. Keep supporting President Bush. Everything is just fine. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 24 2003, 08:51 AM Post #33 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I'm sure the Werwolves would have loved you. If you don't know, ther Werwolves were Nazi guerilla's after WWII. They alone were responsible for 40 and more allied deaths. If we had run away with our tail tucked between our legs then (like you and yours desire now), Germany would either have had a longer civil war (against Britain and the Soyuz Sovietskiiy), or been steamrollered into oblivion. The Divine Wind in Japan (remember the kamikaze) did the same thing... in fact there was an attempted coup against Hirohito the night before we nuked Nagasaki. We were in both countries as defacto administration for YEARS. The problem is, in our current whiny history some of us are afraid to commit to long term programs. We are doing an EXCELLENT job in Iraq. Life there is getting back to normal, and the reason you see this spate of guerilla attack is due to our successes. The attacks by the Fedayeen Saddam are meant, not to drive us out, but to change the opinions of people like yourself because these folks know how the anti-Bush media will report it. I admit to having sources you don't. Former classmates of mine are on the ground there, and I still get a lot of news through military backchannels (although I will not discuss classified information simply because I don't receive it). You're stuck watching CNN and reading the New York Times and the Minneapolis-St. Paul RED STAR Tribune. The phrase "tolerance of the Bush administration's performance in Iraq has run out" has me asking you "What tolerance?" What are they supposed to do? Do you have a background in nationbuilding to be able to forecast where they should be at this point? Face it (please)... you just have a bias against this administration. The situation on the ground IS NOT deteriorating at all, but rather improving. This is indicated by desperation attempts by the pro-Saddam types. Did you even read my last post?? As for Rumsfeld's snowflakes, the problem he has is that both the Pentagon and the State Department are still littered with appointees from the previous administration. Bet ya didn't know that. Many of these posts need CONGRESSIONAL approval and have been stonewalled for three years. Bet you didn't know that either. I think these "snowflakes" as you call them are his way of bringing this problem into the open, where he'll be able to get a mandate to do something about it (in the Pentagon at least). The State Department will be up to Colin Powell... I like the guy, but he is too much the "go along to get along type." That is fine for diplomatic functions, but the inmates are running the asylum over at State... he isn't.
I know you meant that sarcastically, but everything is a lot better than you think. Don't be a fairweather fan, Benetil. We used to be a NATION once, rather than a collection of splinter groups. Pity your folks forget that. (Before you say anything, remember I served through nearly seven years with Bill Clinton as my commander-in-chief. I could have resigned, but I didn't. It was my LOYALTY as an American that kept me on.) This nation is too influenced by polls, politicians doing whatever they can to stay in power or get their power back, and special interest groups with agendae that aren't for America, but just for themselves. Pity. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Oct 24 2003, 09:48 AM Post #34 |
|
Admiral
|
Very true. Too often, we tend to forget this.
Admiralbill, Thank you, sir, for your service. I truly appreciate the efforts of you and others who have served. I also think it is admirable that you would respect the office of the President despite who might hold that office. BTW, my brother-in-law is a Major in the army, currently serving in Baghdad, and my uncle (PFC) gave his life in Vietnam (1966). My most valuable treasure is the Purple Heart that has been passed on to me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 24 2003, 10:06 AM Post #35 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Keep making unfounded assumptions about other people, Benetil, rather than discuss real issues with them. That way you never have to put yourself on the line for others to criticize. You can appear to have the moral ground without ever having really contributed anything. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Oct 25 2003, 12:58 PM Post #36 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Since I'm coming in late on this post, here are some itinerant ramblings: Since Enterprise was a rerun this week I watched 60 Minutes II instead. On it was an interview with the grandson, and titular heir, of the Ayatollah Khomeini. He, like his grandfather before him, is a conservative shiite fundamentalist. Guess what he thinks of the American presence in Iraq?--- He's in favor of it! See we're still at a point where we are trying to figure out who knew what and when did they know it. Tom Friedman's politcs are the reverse of Rush Limbaugh's so he is not going to likely find much worthy of praise in the Bush administration's handling of the Iraqi situation. I, like many others here, agreed with the several reasons that President Bush, and others, supplied as the impetus for moving against Iraq. I realized, as well, going in that intel can be pretty screwy at best. If by this time both parties were still largely united in their views on Iraqi plicy I would have been thoroughly surprised. If that had been the case then the Democrats would effectively be handing President Bush as easy reelection. The economy has been slowly imrpoving and I have said that would likely be the lynch pin on whether Bush gets a second term. I still think that for the most part, but since the Democrats want the Whitehouse back, they need to attack Bush on both his domestic and foreign policies now. President Bush's people point to an intel failure on the part of the CIA (essentially). This is a point where CIA Director Tenet's political loyalties may come into play, plus the CIA ops logically defending their work. The finger pointing is sarting in big time now. With the 2004 cycle starting to roll combined with the finger pointing between the Adminstration and the CIA, policy is going to get slammed at every turn. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Oct 26 2003, 02:41 AM Post #37 |
|
Ensign
|
They haven't reorganized the brass in Iraq 3 times because everything has gone right. They can't close the border because they planned it too well. They haven't gotten oil production up to pre-war, have enogh forces to cover all the needs or have the proper avenues for funding because they did a good job planning. Most importantly Bush and Co aren't on their commercial tour to defend their Itaq policy because things are going well. Painting Iraq as a squalled hell-hole may not be right but to buy the rosy RNC approved picture would be stoopid. If it were the democrats campaign they'd be tryng to paint with the same rosy brush. Witchita, One can criticize bad planning without supplying an alternative. Its the task of the representatives to supply options not the voters. To task a member of the star trek message board with coming up with alternatives as a means to devalue their criticism is unrealistic and rather un-democratic. Just because you smell the stink doesn't make it your job to shovel the ****. Bill wrote:
An intresting opinion, if not totally illogical. Our progress=increased attacks. Would the attacks stops if we were making no progress? I don't think so. Bush wants to convince us that the attacks are a GOOD sign. Thats some mighty spin.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 26 2003, 12:01 PM Post #38 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Gee, talk about spin... Three times the "brass" has been reorganized in Iraq? I count once, when Paul Bremer came in to administrate. He's still there. Okay, sure. WHAT MAKES ONE QUALIFIED TO CRITICIZE, THEN?? Answer: NOTHING. How fast can you spin, Qubed? Yes, progress DOES equate to increased attacks against our troops. It is completely logical and taught in standard tactics classes. Do you remember Okinawa? Do you remember kamikaze attacks? The Werwolves were founded in 1944, not 1945 and did the same thing. You put a "determined foe" up against a wall and they will do ANYTHING. This is what is happening. The problem with this country is that the wishy-washy don't have a stomach for it. It isn't pretty, and no one wants to hear about soldiers dying, but they ARE doing the right thing. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 26 2003, 12:13 PM Post #39 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think that the USA handled the main combat phase of the operation in Iraq very well. Our military is clearly the best in the business of war. I also believe that Iraq was something that we (USA) had to deal with. But I'm irritated and confused by the fact that so many of the "reasons" that President Bush gave us for going to war have yet to materialize - - and I'm left to make a decision about whether our (USA) intelligence organizations just aren't very good at doing their jobs or the Bush administration intentionally emphasized certain 'trigger' details simply to justify the war. No matter which question I try to answer, I don't like the answer. Again - with the post-war phase of the operation, I sense a disconnect between the way that the President and the Secretary of Defense said the conditions would be and how the conditions really appear to be. I don't know whether to attribute the disparity in this area to the administration's lies/exaggerations or to the CIA's incompetence (poor/erroneous intelligence). I think we all know that President Bush blames "bad picture" on the media for not reporting all of the positive developments. I think the truth is more in the area that we're encoutering a more robust, more determined and more organized resistance than our government ever believed we would. In short, we've been caught by surprise. And, in many respects, Donald Rumsfeld's recent memo seems to lean toward this same conclusion. Because we're encoutering a more robust and more determined resistance than the President and other members of his administration may have thought, I believe that we're seeing signs that prove that we sent the wrong kind of force (wrong numbers of forces who are equipped with the wrong kinds of weapons/tools and perhaps even giving them the wrong kinds of missions to carry out) during this phase of the operation. I mean, do we really want to be opening schools when there are (appear to be) still extremely violent, extremely difficult battles that will take longer than expected to complete? I think it is about time that we capture or otherwise do away with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, too. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 26 2003, 12:31 PM Post #40 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Once again, it is hard to make an analysis like that when you don't have all the information. I wouldn't do it, and I have sources you don't. By the way, Osama is dead and vaporized. This is why we've only seen one old videotape (the newsies don't comment that his beard was darker than when we started the Afghan campaign) and some audiotapes. Look, all they need to do to prove he's alive is this (and the same with Saddam). Get a recent newspaper... show the scum holding the paper on tape. What have we seen so far? Osama skipping from rock to rock and audio from Saddam. I think Saddam is out there, because he had the infrastructure and the paranoia to set up hidey holes and escape routes. Osama did not. He's less than worm food right now. Regarding your comment on the Rumsfeld memo, did you read it? It was all over the net last week. I did. The media (just like wth the David Kay WMD report) distorted it. This is why Rumsfeld called a press conference and came to the podium WITH A DICTIONARY to spell out exactly what he meant. Somehow I don't think that made ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN.
The wrong kind of force? What is the right kind of force? Maybe we should just tuck our tails between our legs and run? Yes, we DO want to be opening schools. This enforces that we are in Iraq to BENEFIT the Iraqis. There ARE NO BATTLES OUT THERE. Show me one. I'm sorry, but four guys with an RPG is not a battle, it is a skirmish. I love hearing analyses from folks who don't understand war... not. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 26 2003, 01:21 PM Post #41 |
|
Unregistered
|
I'm just an ordinary person, Admiralbill_gomec. Just a law abiding, tax-paying citizen. Good for you that you have access to information that I don't - you've earned that access. I don't have it. I'm left to make assessments based on the information that I do have access to. The media isn't perfect and news organizations certainly have agendae of their own - BUT SO DOES THE ADMINISTRATION. Of the two (news media Vs. the government) it is a coin toss as to which is more deceptive, in my opinion. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the way that President Bush's executive branch has defied the legislative branch (Senators McCain, Shelby, Hagel, Rockefeller and others have complained about the Bush adminstration in this respect) where the Freedom of Information Act is concerned. It makes me think that the Bush administration is hiding something. AND PEOPLE RARELY HIDE GOOD OR FAVORABLE NEWS - especially politicians. When I look at the situation and find that the President's words line-up with the conditions in Iraq, I'll be a lot more comfortable. Right now, the disparity between what I heard from the President leading up to the war and what I'm seeing (reports from the media) causes me to be concerned. US Senators and other dignitaries who go to Iraq come back with pro and con assessments, too - the coin has two sides, if you will. The media is reporting some good news - but I can't ignore the bad - or discount the bad. If I had been more prepared for the bad news - or if the Bush administration had been better prepared for the difficult conditions on the ground in Iraq - I might be a lot more comfortable right now. Your condescending question about whether I ever read Donald Rumsfeld's memo is ridiculous. Not only did I read the text of the memo - but I witnessed Secretary Rumsfeld's piss-poor acting job when he feigned surprise at how his memo "of snowflakes" mysteriously found its way to the media - and then took opportunity to clarify and elaborate on his press release - (I mean his secret internal memo). Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is a bad actor. I hope you're right about Osama bin Laden - I've noticed certain aspects of the video footage that you mention, but I'm left to guess as to whether or not he's really gone. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 26 2003, 01:39 PM Post #42 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
It wasn't meant to be condescending, and certainly didn't sound it. Stop being so touchy. There are people that will go off and make statements based on either hearsay or second (or third) hand information. Like you, I read the memo, and yes I did see his press conference. Of course I had a different opinion on both. That is to be expected. By the way, I'd rather Rumsfeld be a good Secretary of Defense (and yes, he is excellent... especially compared to his two predecessors) than a good or bad actor. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Oct 26 2003, 01:57 PM Post #43 |
|
Unregistered
|
Right kind of force? For one, the Bush administration probably could have/should have made more of an effort to secure the participation of and commitment of even more nations prior to going to war. And for another, the Bush administration probably should have done more to "preserve" elements of the Iraqi Army and/or police forces that could partner with our forces to secure borders and patrol neighborhoods. I'm glad about the UN resolution that just recently passed (unanimous vote) the Security Council. That was nice, but it really does little in the way (tangible, immediate action) of assembling more participation in Iraq's future. The battle that is going on is certainly not conventional. The tactics and the guerilla attacks that our forces are facing constitute a deadly insurgency - a multi-national insurgency that is coated with a fanatical, religious, anti-American fervor. I have to revert back to Tom Friedman's article where he says that "pretending that we're just 'mopping-up' is a dangerous illusion." There is, from my point of view, a whole lot more than just a "skirmish" going on in Iraq. But you know a lot more about war than I do. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Oct 26 2003, 04:15 PM Post #44 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I honestly found this statement so perplexing that I wrote a number of different responses trying to get a handle on trying to answer it. Yes, you can certainly criticize what you perceive to be bad planning without supplying an alternative. I don't ever recall stating that you (generic you) couldn't so I am hardly going to disagree with that statement. If you expect to sway me to your side, however, then you are going to have to provide an alternative or name somebody who has some semblance of real power who has an alternative or even convince me you have the expertise or information to state that the bad planning existed. Oddly enough, telling me that I am too stupid to think, assuming my intent is to "slam" someone, assuming that I hold a specific political position because I disagree with you or even assuming that I am employing some "means" for whatever purpose is not going to do it. No one even said, "This is how John Kerry (or any presidential candidate) will handle Iraq in the future." I have to ask myself - why has no one even suggested the plan of another candidate. Do none of the other candidates have a plan (I haven't found it yet) or do even the people who criticize the Bush administration believe things won't be very different under a different President.
I am highlighting this statement because I literally find it to be terrifying. The day that we cease to supply options is the day that we give up all our rights. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Oct 26 2003, 07:02 PM Post #45 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
How many nations are "enough" in your book? Here were the members of the Coalition as of 3/20/03. There are 46 nations total: Afghanistan Albania Australia Azerbaijan Bulgaria Colombia Costa Rica Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic El Salvador Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Georgia Honduras Hungary Iceland Italy Japan Kuwait Latvia Lithuania Macedonia Marshall Islands Micronesia Mongolia Netherlands Nicaragua Palau Panama Philippines Poland Portugal Romania Rwanda Singapore Slovakia Solomon Islands South Korea Spain Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States Uzbekistan On a side note, the population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.17 billion people. As for Kinky Friedman's problem with the phrase "mopping-up," he knows damned well that this is a delicate operation. You (and he) do realize that all the work is being done on eggshells, so as to put the best face on the United States. We could go in there with an additional 100,000 troops and steamroller the country, rousting out every home from one end of Iraq to another (kinda like what we did in Germany), and root out the terrorists that way. But, we choose to be the "kindler and gentler" America. Still, it isn't good enough for those on your side. You simply can't have it both ways... Sorry, but this is a skirmish. When the "insurgents" (try "hangers on from a previous regime and their useful idiots") attack us in force, then it will be a battle... and lots of the enemy will die (just like in the Tet Offensive). Second side note, we won the Tet Offensive. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |


Thats some mighty spin.

2:14 PM Jul 11