Jump to content

Countrydave55

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    3,791
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Countrydave55

  1. I share your concern CPU. Fighting in Iraq even if we did establish democracy (which not even Bush can seriously harbor delusional beliefs of) would only cause terrorists to shift their focus to other areas of influence like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or Indonesia. Terrorism is not about a place. It is about a belief and a method. Bush and Rumfield are making the same mistake Generals have made since there were organized Armies. They are fighting the last war with weapons and skills designed for the last war.
  2. I am not surprised that that there are outsiders fighting with Iraqis. Their were Americans fighting with Afghanis against the Soviet Union. If the US were invaded I would hope that some Canadians, Aussies, Brits would take up arms and fight along side of us. You seem to think that the bloody aspect is the determining factor. "Once people taiste freedom stability and modernization why do you think they would tolerate constant bloodshed." That is not supported by history. There was less bloodshed in Hussein's Iraqi than in the present Iraq. Afghan under the tallibahn had little bloodshed. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy and it has little bloodshed. Bloodshed is essentially independent of the type of government. I think that the significant variable that you are missing is economic opportunity. Democracy does not feed the hungry. Democracy may foster economic opportunity but it is not sufficient. Russia is moving away from democracy. Germany had a democracy and modernization before Hitler. This neoCon belief in the holy grail of democracy does not stand the test of history.
  3. If there is another terrorist attack in the US before our elections I would think that the most likely target will be Kerry. This is the single most effective way of insuring that the administration will not change. A change in administration risks bringing in an administration that might shift the middle east dynamics. If the Jihadists cannot point to the the infidels invading their holy lands they risk the Jihad falling apart. They simply have too much at stake to risk an attack that could weaken the likelihood of Bush becoming president. There are, of course other advantages to the terrorists. It would disrupt the election process. It could increase domestic suspiciousness of Bush and his administration. Especially if they were to plant evidence that pointed to the Bush administration.
  4. "If the terrorists lose Iraq their jihad loses, their cause no longer becomes worthwhile." Good point but inaccurate. The Jihad is to rid the holy lands of the presence and defiling by the infidels. If the Jihadists lost control of Iraq they would only remain a dangerous, murderous, terrorist force in Iraq. They would not cease to exist. They would not say "oops infidels are OK." This is like expecting Jerry Fallwell to accept abortion as the will of the people. His issue, as is the Jihadists' issue, is with what they think is God's will on earth. As long as they believe in their God and have their interpretation of God's will they will continue to fight. This is true until their beliefs die or they die. Since we cannot read minds and therefore do not know the believers from the non believers they cannot be rounded up and killed. Failing that they will always be among us. Second "If the terrorists lose Iraq " is a hypothetical that is utterly unsupported in the presence of what we know. We know that they are growing in numbers, we know that they are controlling more of the country, we know that are disrupting power, water and oil faster than we can build it/fix it. There is no evidence anywhere to suggest that the war is going against th Iraqi insurgency. This is a little like saying that Hitler would have won WWII if Superman had fought for the Axis. Yes I suppose so.
  5. Fortunately the Bush administration has looked into this issue. According to the administration excluding Iraq which they consider a war zone and before the 2 plane bombings in Russia and the School capture and bombing, terrorism was up 400% (July 2004). Now I guess that means the Bush war on terrorism is a success because the more terrorists bomb and murder the more this administration thinks the war is going in the right direction. I guess it is a success because terrorism in in Iraq is only up 100% in a 6 month period (as measured by reported incidents not deaths).
  6. If the terrorists are weaker and are loosing why do Powell and Abizhed acknowledge that terrorist recruitment is up, that terrorist acts are up, that deaths from terrorists are up. According to Abizhed in Iraq alone there are 80 terrorist attacks per day up from 40 just 6 months ago. If the terrorists are quitting the fight or being eliminated why are there more terrorist acts? Are the remaining terrorists just working over time? In the business models I am familiar with you cannot double production in a labor intensive field without significantly increasing workers. If the terrorists are loosing why does Prince Abdulla of Jordan, among the US's strongest Arab allies (loyalty not military might) in the region say that Iraq is in chaos and that elections cannot be held because only the insurgents and terrorists will be voting. If the terrorists are loosing why did the US decide that 40% of the 100,000 national guard/police in Iraq will be fired (and paid a few thousand dollars each as severance pay) because they are not believed to be reliable or are known to be conspiring with the insurgents. Why is the Bush administration trying to hire another 100,000 police/guards and train them before the election takes place? Why would anybody think that a new 100,000 troops that get paid to quit would be more reliable than the 40% being let go? Why would a a Guard General be fired for aiding the insurgents if we are winning? What does that say about the screening procedure? If we are winning
  7. Well put and well elaborated deuces. As Rob has pointed out you are far smarter than the rest of us but perhaps might want to through us a crumb. Which if either of those assertions do you disagree with? Do you have any examples of where the assertion was incorrect?
  8. While Osama's prediction is only opinion and not fact it must be seen as more reliable than what Bush is predicting. Osama's predictions have all come to pass so far. None of Bush's have proved correct. I am not sure it makes sense to bet against some one riding a streak. As for Iran and weapons. Bush makes promises he can't keep. Seems like he said he was going to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the North Koreans as well. They have them. Iran's move toward democracy has slowed and perhaps been stopped. Some of it is no doubt caused by a crack down in Iran but some of it is a shift to again believe that the US is the Great Satan. This is certainly a reaction to the US invasion of Iraq and now threats against IRAN, while being on Iran's border.
  9. I know that there is continuing dispute as to whether Iraqi is improving or not. Some are arguing that Bush has the full picture and sees the progress. However Powell may not have access to the full picture either since Powell said "Iraqi security forces are growing in strength and ability. " in Powell quote I hate to think that Powell isn't given the same access to information as Bush and the rest of the cabinet.
  10. "I think the real issue is, When are we going to get those people Home, where they belong?" Drovers I think there are at least 2 issues. The significant one that you bring up and a consistent lack of critical thinking and understanding of logic. In Mr. Bush's case case, for example, he seems to reason that if he is not caught and punished then it is not wrong. If he has reports that things are going well then no matter how overwhelming the contrary data is he seems to think that he is correct. It seems to me that the administration is not very different than the designers and the captain of the Titanic. As I understand it they designed a ship that they believed to be unsinkable. Since the ship was unsinkable the need for life boats and lots of waterproof bulkheads was obviated. When the ship struck an iceberg and was taking on water the hubris of the captain and crew was that since the ship was unsinkable there was no great need to muster all hands, secure all hatches, and prepare to abandon ship. Instead the position was that all was well even as the ship was listing. Eventually of course the captain realized that they were sinking and it was too late. Most engineers think it was too late as soon as the designers decided the ship was unsinkable but I am not trying to rethink every wrong decision that went into the Titanic. By analogy you have a President that did not prepare for anything other than a quick battle, with a rapid victory, in a country with a welcoming people and intact infrastructure. The battle was quick but nothing else was to plan yet he still says that there is no problem, and all is well.
  11. I am afraid lack of challenge to the presidents authority to wage war extra-constitutionally and the supreme courts having not reviewed such a challenge is not dispositive. Ask any police officer or prosecutor how much crime is identified, how often the perpetrators are caught, how often the criminal is convicted or pleas. The answer is "we don't know but we suspect only a small amount". I think the same rule applies to Presidential behavior unless you can find a full time prosecutor to scrutinize the persons every move. In the case of this issue it must be acknowledged that it isn't a very pressing issue. Once the troops are in theater even if the Supreme Court found that a declaration of war was required and not made that would not mean people would put down their guns and go home. The only practical effect would be that the congress would have to declare war which I think everyone thinks they would do if our troops were actively under fire.
  12. I disagree with your reasoning. The legislature who gave him authority to attack is hardly likely to then impeach him for acting on a privilege they bestowed. Yes it could happen but it is exceedingly improbable especially in a legislature that is predominated by Republicans that are as supportive of the administration as they appear to be. The supreme court is has not ruled on this issue. It has not granted certerori on the issue. Unless or until they do the court has not spoken to this issue. One cannot assume that the court's not having spoken to the issue means that they believe that it is legal. I know of no cases that the Supreme Court has spoken to sua sponte. I am sure that they may have but I don't know of any. If you do, please cite one as I am interested. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of what is and waht is not legal their having failed to take up this issue only means that that it has not been found to be legal not that it has been found to be legal. Good try though.
  13. Please enlighten me. I know of no supreme court ruling supporting war that is not declared as war. I would appreciate the citation. I know that the supreme court declined certiorari when it came up with this nonwar.
  14. I beg to differ. One2Gamble asserts that we will know that the war will be over because we will be leaving. Since Rumsfield said we may leave as soon as January and since whatever it is that is going on in Iraq will still be going then the thing which some call war will still be going on. Ergo the assertion is false. As for my statement being irrelevant you are simply incorrect. The power to declare war is solely vested in the legislature. Now if they choose to sanction an invasion of another country they may do that. It may or may not be legal. But that isn't the point. The point is that war was not declared therefore one can declare the war over.
  15. First war was never declared so I guess Bush can't say "the war is over". Oddly most people understood his statement about major combat as being over to mean that the semi-war was over. Do you think he was trying to mislead us or do you think he was confused and not bothering to listen to his briefings? I think for a long time people thought that Bush was not very bright and that is the reason he wont talk or answer questions. It seems perhaps he is in fact very clever. He says nothing so he can't be found to be wrong. We he speaks he uses vague terms and euphemisms so you can't know what he is saying. As for the statement that the undeclared war can be determined to be over because the troops will be coming home doesn't ring true. The war in Germany and Japan ended almost 60 years ago (the president said so) and yet there are troops there. On Thursday Rumsfield said that the troops may come home after the January election because democracy is established. By that definition "an election" constitutes the end of the semi-war. It would seem to me that that only means it is the end of the war for those soldiers because surely no one will argue the situation being left behind is stable or peaceful.
  16. Interesting reads but they do not say anything about right track wrong track that I saw. I think that was the disputed issue or did we want to change the definitions again? And yes I and other Floridians appreciate the help and assistance but like other people in other places that does not mean we want you to move in and take over.
  17. I don't know where people get their news. Right Track Wrong Track Besides Bush is the one that said more Iraqis "51% think Iraqi is on the right track". Now math was never my strength but unless you are asserting that the proper US figure is 50% then I think that you should write Bush and Tell him he is wrong about what the US people think. Or is this another one of those things where if you don't consider that Bush is a bad president and ask the same question, most people think we are on the right track. Sort of the way you figure out if there are terrorist attacks or drug users. Just change the definition and recount.
  18. Living in Florida with an average of 2 hurricanes a month for the last 2 months I am beginning to see the administrations point. I was just outside planting some sapling to replace the 2 40 year old oaks that blew down. And I am planning to put a tarp over the hole in the roof. I am going to paint my exterior walls too. I think that that is all good. Who cares that 2 months ago none of these repairs were required. Who cares that we are expecting another hurricane strike in 72 hours which will probably destroy the saplings, who cares that the tarp will blow off and the interior mold will get wet again. I think it is important to ignore the houses destroyed, the electricity that has been off for 6 days (not mine a friend 3 miles away), who cares that people died, that livelihoods were taken away. I think it is important to focus on how great this is. After all at least the Iraqis think that they are on the right track it is Americans that don't think we are on the right track.
  19. President Bush said that on the Right Track Wrong Track polling (Of course Mr. Bush never listens to polls) Iraqis said that they were on the Right Track more than Americans said they were on the Right Track. Does this mean that Bush thinks we should have more bombings on the streets and fewer utilities so that our Right Track numbers can go up?
  20. I agree that there is likely to be a terrorist attack in the US before the US election. The Al Quieda cannot run a risk of a Bush defeat. Most everyone agrees that an attack in the US will initially result in a patriotic fervor and hatred of the "terrorists" with a rallying around the administration. The expectation that within a month the anger will turn toward the administration for again failing its duty to protect the people. So timing is everything. The Al Quieda must keep Bush as president. A new administration might bring new allies or even worse might result in withdrawal. The Al Quieda cannot exist without an enemy to unify them. If the west is not occupying their lands and killing Muslims then the movement will decline. Bin Laden cannot run a terrorist organization and get financial backing if the hated enemy is far away.
  21. Crasher- Please review the forum rules, your post "Its a good thing that you don't live in the UK because you would be arrested and in jail for this type of false accusation against the leader of the country. Maybe its time that YOU stop drinking and snorting and stop inventing and rewriting history" and then edit your post accordingly. Attacks on forum members are unacceptable. I am offended by your assertion. I would appreciate a public apology. As for my statements. I asked a hypothetical question I made no accusation. There are presidents that may be described by some or all of those criteria. GWB reports that his youth "was misspent " "with too much running around and drinking" . His financial history is well known. Everyone knows about the failed congressional bid, the failed oil company, the Savings and Loan debacle, and the Texas Rangers stadium deal. There are several books that report he has been involved in cocaine, his cousin's say he did Coke at camp David in Bush Sr. administration. When confronted about his cocaine habit he refused to answer. Not, he denied it. He refused to answer. We know he has a DUI. We don't know why he failed his flight physical in the guard. I really don't care that he was an alcohol and cocaine abuser. That isn't the point. The point is that his reckless, negligent, criminal behavior may not predict the way he runs a govt. But then again it may.
  22. I am not sure that running a campaign is the same as running a govt. If it were we would have Rove as president. Let me ask How can a man that spends 1/2 of his life drinking excessively, using cocaine, failing repeatedly to achieve a successful financial venture (until the govt. helped). How could someone who can't manage their personal life (to borrow from a previous Republican candidate) hope to manage a country. Well we have the answer. Allow others to make decisions and leave the rest to benign neglect.
  23. Dave I agree 100%. The sooner we leave the fewer our casualties and we cannot prevent the inevitable. Lets see we appoint the congress, we pay the congress. The congress selects a former CIA operative. Well I don't see any possible connection. I guess Allawi was lucky to have gotten appointed at all. It does seem odd that Allawi's govt. would announce that the female prisoners would be paroled and then later reverse the decision after the US administration said it was a bad idea. As I recall Challabe was a Wolfowitz hand pick but he was already cut off and under investigation before Allawi was nominated/selected. Not even Bush would back Challabe while under investigation as a double agent for Iran. I will accept his word to an extent also. To the extent that I can't believe my own eyes when I see casualty rates increasing, more areas of the country falling out of US control. I am not saying the man is a not telling the truth I just think that he and Bush are powerfully motivated to see what they want to see and believe what seems unbelievable.
  24. Well if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck. What is it? Didn't Rumsfield say that the elections could take place in most of Iraq except Baghdad, and the Suni triangle? Isn't that the largest population in the country? Does that suggest things are going well when only the minority part of the population is not safe enough for an election? Surely no one seriously believes that the situation is better in Iraq than it was 6 months ago or 3 months ago? If the most powerful man in the world cannot demonstrate that the situation is getting better except by saying "Things are getting better" and "Don't believe me ask him" in referring to Allawi isn't that slim evidence? Why would the CIA be confused about our success in Iraq? Why would we doubt Allawi anyway? Just because he is installed by the US govt and is essentially a political appointee of Bush? Because his life literally depends upon retaining power and keeping American support?
  25. I am sure you are right. I keep hoping Bush will do something about the liberal bias of the CIA and John McCain. Of course there is that annoying issue with the increasing US death toll despite fewer patrols by the US military. And that there is no potable water in the Country. And the increased number of retaliatory US Air Strikes in Iraq. And that there is still no reliable oil export. And that electricity is not restored (defined by 24 hour availability) anywhere in the country. I am sure Abized is a liberal General too. He clearly is trying to sabotage his efforts in the country.
×
×
  • Create New...