Obama wants Bush war team to stay
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who has been named to the same Cabinet post in the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama, is asking experienced members of the Bush war team to stick around to smooth the transition in the Pentagon. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has asked most Bush administration political appointees except those targeted for dismissal to stay on in the Pentagon until replaced by the Obama administration in the coming months. “I have received authorization from the president-elect’s transition team to extend a number of Department of Defense political appointees an invitation to voluntarily remain in their current positions until replaced,” Mr. Gates said in an Dec. 19 e-mail to political appointees. The chance to stay is “available to all willing political appointees with the exception of those who are contacted individually and told otherwise,” he stated.
link
Great news for those who think the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror as a whole are being managed well, but it flies directly in the face of those who expected CHANGE, who voted for CHANGE, and who do not think America’s wars have been managed well. Outcry from the left (nada). Maybe they just opposed President Bush and not the wars? Noooo, that couldn’t possibly be. That would mean their dissent and opposition to the wars has been based on partisanship not patriotism.
(Sadly, we are sans popcorn today, so I’ll switch to Christmas cookies instead for this one)
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
“Great news for those who think the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terror as a whole are being managed well, but it flies directly in the face of those who expected CHANGE, who voted for CHANGE, and who do not think America’s wars have been managed well. ”
So – IOW, this site approves of Obama – but we need to bash him somehow, so we’ll pretend we care what the opposition thinks – and how HURT they must be by Obama.
Let me answer for you. Some lefties are very upset with Obama’s choices. But these are probably Nadarists and very far outside the mainstream. The rest of us knows that change comes from the top. I’m glad that Obama left a strong framework in place instead of completely upsetting the apple cart. So when Bushites begin implementing Obama policy, it will be MUCH harder for the right to complain – is SAINT Petraeus and the right Rev. gates now going to be cast away as evil Obamaists? I don’t think so. These guys know the situation on the ground and will be able to implement Obama’s vision much more smoothly than had he cleaned house and had the Pentagon against him. And let’s face it, with Obama MUCH more gung ho for taking the fight to bin Laden than McCain ever was (McCain called Obama naive for suggesting that Pakistan (our ally) might not be up to the job of killing OBL – or going into Pakistan unilaterally – which, of course, we’re now doing (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/world/asia/04attack.html) ) – the idea that Obama is weak or another Clintonite are pure Warpublican talking points – only the most naive of lefties ever believed that Obama was a progressive…
the rest of us knew he was far more center/center right than either the left or the right was willing to admit…
You still don’t get it, do you, warp’ed?
Many of us here at FA… prior to your arrival on the scene… figured Obama was going to be Bush III out of necessity. It is not us who are surprised. And yes, we welcome that Obama will be doing the right thing after getting those inside briefings of reality whispered in his ear. At least we think so at this point.
What we deplore is that he campaigned on foreign policy lies to the gullible. What we think is despicable is you spend years bashing Bush (which you think is okay), but somehow magically believe that when Obama implements a mirror policy… it’s now smart.
And of course, the ultimate in chutzpah is that you continually expose your non-specific and widespread BDS whenever you want, but call us on the carpet for critizing Obama on specifics.
As far as you not believing that Obama is a progressive bent on installing massive socialist welfare programs…. I’d say your predictions are premature… the guy’s not in office yet. But of course he’s not taking a hard left turn in the first days, or possibly first year. It’s the second year that will be telling. He only has a narrow window of opportunity with the almost (or a) supermajority to ram expensive social programs down the taxpayers throat. A common goal he shares, and campaigned on, with Pelosi and Reid.
“What we think is despicable is that it’s okay that you spend years bashing Bush (which you think is okay), but somehow think that when Obama implements a mirror policy… it’s smart.”
Wrong – I’m against Obama’s Afghanistan policy – i don’t think we should be in that country, nor iraq – but I knew going in that he was gung-ho for Afghanistan. Bush’s undoing was iraq – it will tail his legacy like a rock tied around his waist. I found it interesting that many claimed Clinton’s rocket attacks on Iraq and the Sudan were used to push Monica off the front pages, but no one (on the right) EVER questioned the timing of Bush’s idiotic invasion of Iraq – was Saddam MORE dangerous on 9/12 than he was on 9/10? of course not – Bush WANTED to invade Iraq and got his chance when we were attacked on 9/11. if Bush genuinely believed that Saddam was such a major threat, why didn’t he campaign on that threat? Why cook up nonsense about WMDs – which would’ve been the same WMDs that didn’t exist when Bush took office? Was Bush unaware of Saddam and his non-WMDs when he took office – hard to believe considering his father! No – IMHO, the right wing – still smarting from our inability to break the will of Vietnemese peasants, have been panting for a war that we could finally win – prove our manhood, and get out – but we didn’t win that one either – did we? Al qaeda still exists. Iraq – far from a friend of America’s – will never share her foriegn policy objectives – particularly where Israel and fundie Islam are concerned – I absolutely believed that the people of iraq turned against AQI – but NOT because of their OBJECTIVES- only their tactics. I have no doubt in my mind that the shoe thrower exemplified the feelings of quite a few iraqis – if not many Muslim Arabs around the region (and code pink, too!) – thus the Obama hatred. Bush is a failure in so many ways – so unliked by the American people or the global community – leaving this country in financial tatters, soldiers in two war zones, al qaeda and bin Laden still gunning for Americans, GM, Ford, Chrysler about to tank – the man can’t get no respect. Look for a sorta repeat – Obama will be very popular even as the right wing spits fire – he will out manuver you just like Clinton did – and maybe – just MAYBE, in eight years, you’ll get your Sarah Palin in office – and once again a right winger will be an utter failure and very unpopular…
Merry Christmas…
Warpig, there’s no escaping it:
-War in Iraq has been a crutch issue for Dems since before the invasion
-Now, the only thing that’s going to change is the President…the rest of the leaders
DO NOT CHANGE
That means that when it comes to natsec, the only CHANGE the left really wanted was partisan not patriotic. If they wanted substantive CHANGE…then the leftnuts would be freaking out (first at Petraeus and Gates and DoD’s report to The One that 16 months is not reasonable, and second that after presenting that report….The One chose NOT TO CHANGE the leadership of the war).
Yawn. Dissent is great when it’s aimed at making the nation better, but this proves (again) that the left’s dissent was more based on Presidential partisanship than patriotic defense and interest.
In other news on that level of surprise, water is wet and the sky is blue.
No, no, no… NO WAY! Feint right, move left. Obama is manipulating everybody right now.
Read again: “Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has asked most Bush administration political appointees except those targeted for dismissal to stay on in the Pentagon UNTIL REPLACED by the Obama administration in the coming months.”
Obama is the most extreme leftist politician that the USA has ever seen. His goal is to destroy capitalism and turn this country into a communist country. Just remember that you are dealing here with a great manipulator, never forget that. Manipulators are great opportunists, they will do whatever they have to do to reach there goals. They don’t care who they deceive or please in doing so. They will do it no matter what. Obama is an obsessed socialist/Marxist/communist at heart. He has always been and will always be. No miracle will change that.
Mata is right. A good manipulator does not show or play all his cards in the beginning, he bluffs for a while and fools everybody. But just watch him go. Extreme left is where he is going.
Iraq is over. The Iraqis are going to have to sort that mess out for themselves. Some think that they will hold hands and sing Kumbaya, I don’t. Less than 10% of the 2 million Iraqis who fled the country as refugees have returned, apparently they are as pessimistic about the future of Iraq as I am.
MSNBC and the moonbattus denialus have increased their claims about Iraqi civilians killed to over 2 million. I doubt that number, but those who believe the nutjobs’ rhetoric (and by extension would believe that kinda crap) best not be holding their breath for their return. ‘Course, I wonder if the sourcing for the 2million refugees is the same as the 2 million killed (ie both estimates/political claims?)?
I have no idea why Iraqis or anyone would doubt the resolve of a Democrat President who has called for abandoning Iraq as soon as possible, and who is supported by a Democrat Congress that’s tried for years to abandon Iraq to terrorists. Why would anyone doubt the resolve of such people?
@Warpublican Review:
Warp,
I don’t question Clinton’s timing with Lewinsky. Given that elections happen every 2 years, it’s easy to accuse politicians of ulterior political motives when making policy decisions on behalf of the country.
Going by your logic, why did we go into Afghanistan instead of hitting Iraq first?
What became different about Saddam on 9/12 from 9/10 was that we were jarred from a malaise about the the world we live in, and the metastasizing threat he posed given that he had a love for wmd acquisition, a history of usage, and a sponsorship of terrorist activities.
Campaign, when?
What do you mean by “cook up”? How do you know they didn’t exist when Bush took office, given the acknowledged lack of human intell on the ground, and weapons inspectors kicked out in ’98? Majority opinion suggested Saddam was acquiring wmd capabilities.
You’re a real piece of work, you know that? Do you ever just sit back….take a breath….read back to yourself what you just typed?
You should.
WOW! Warpub really went off the Che Guevarra loving deep end on that last post. Truly, a Christmas present for us all. I know I got a good laugh out of it. Only thing it didn’t do was include the buzz words: Haliburton, Cheney, and neocon. It needed those, but for the A+, he’d have had to include, “running-dog lackeys of the imperialist pigs.”
Thanks for the present Warped. I appreciate it. Got a great laugh. May your dime bag never go empty.
warp’ed.. listening to you babble on about military timing and logic is like watching you spinning your two wheel drive on ice, guy. Were you Roosevelt’s Secy of Defense, you would have gone after Japan following Pearl Harbor, instead of heading into N. Africa against Germany… and, of course, would have been instrumental in losing the war.
You demonstrate absolutely no capability of military strategy for a global theatre. Stick to your day job.
And my gawd, man… talking about Clinton sidelining the press from his impeachment by bombing Iraq. Uh…with concrete? His “low-level” war? Had there been an actual attempt to do anything constructive… and not some psuedo air assault with concrete… less attention would have been paid to the timing. Otherwise it was a worthless action meant only to distract. Oh yeah… Clinton “outmaneuvered” only one person… Hillary.
And you’re clueless as to why the timing of the removal of Saddam was when it was? duh wuh… the chem/bio gear the troops would have to wear if we went in during the summer heat.
But then you think Iraq was “rushed”… let’s see, OIF in Mar 2003 is a year and five months past 911… over a year spent debating, presentations to the UNSC, voting in Congress for the AUMF.
okay…. math evidently isn’t your strong suit either.
And still with the WMD. Doesn’t matter Congress had 23 “where as” reasons, the majority of which had nothing to do with WMD. But WMD became the rallying cry of the press because it was the single issue where we may be able to get the precious UN involved, and appease the “global citizens” in our midst. Once we went that route, you couldn’t get any American to read the AUMF and reconnect with reality. They are all ruled by CNN and MSNBC.
And I really love how you believe Vietnam is a GOP war with Republicans still “smarting”…. duh. What can anyone say to such a deplorable grasp of history?
Merry Christmas, yourself, warp’ed. Hope Santa brought you a history book …
Hummm, John Ryan. Ever cross your mind that those that fled Iraq were Sunni Ba’athist and/or Saddam supporters? Perhaps after bullying the majority Iraqis and enjoying Saddam’s favor, they preferred to be elsewhere.
Would you like to tell us how many have not returned to New Orleans now? zzzzzzzzz
As for your pessimism… forgive me if I use a famous quote. “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”…. and I’m sure the Iraqis don’t care what you think either. They are on the road to figuring out how to have a central government with a diverse population. Gee… wonder where else we might find a similar situation???
“And I really love how you believe Vietnam is a GOP war with Republicans still “smarting”…. duh. What can anyone say to such a deplorable grasp of history?”
I don’t believe that Vietnam was a Republican war – but I believe that Republicans exploit the military – as they do patriotism – and I believe that republicans were/are too happy to jump on and exploit the failed narrative that the Vietnam war WOULD’VE been won were it not for the media and the ant-war movement. I’ve heard it too many times from the right-wing that our loss in vietnam was not about three (2.5?) lying administrations and a lying Pentagon – but Walter Kronkite and jane Fonda! The right has been too happy to ignore the millions of pounds of bombs and chem weapons we dropped on Vietnam – the millions of American boots on the grounds, the millions of fixed wing and helicopter sorties, the artillary, the assasinations, the political intrigue – the lies to the American peoples, the secret bombings of Cambodia and Laos, the lie about the Gulf of Tonkon – even the lie that Giap was ready to quit but held out hope because of the American left – and blame Americans protesting an evil war that not only killed tens of thousands of American soldiers – but – depending on who you believe – hundreds of thousands to millions of Vietnemese – and for what? And for why? the SAME lie they told about Iraq – because if we don’t kill them OVER THERE – they’ll kill us OVER HERE…
I know that smart republicans and right wingers don’t believe this – they know better – but they’re only too happy to allow that division to fester – thus, Sarah Palin splitting the nation between REAL America and NOT REAL America – small towns and urban centers – patriotic americans and those who pall around with terrorists – and how does the right react? They claim HER the second coming of Ronald reagan – reducing the gipper from a great communicator to a small town dope…
“Were you Roosevelt’s Secy of Defense, you would have gone after Japan following Pearl Harbor, instead of heading into N. Africa against Germany… and, of course, would have been instrumental in losing the war.”
I would’ve? With our navy and airforce devestated at pearl harbor? I don’t think so. But who’s really confusing the issues? Are you comparing post-sanction (and post Gulf War) Iraq to pre-WWII Hilter germany – with Stalin as an ally and Japan on board? Are you comparing Saddam to Hilter – who within a few years was in control of much of Western Europe and a good chunk of the east as well – even as japan was claiming the South pacific and a huge piece of China? Are you comparing 9/11 to Pearl harbor? Are you comparing Kuwait to Poland and then France? When The Japs attacked, we had a fledgling military – still anxious from WWI. When 9/11 occurred, were were the sole nuclear and military superpower – even with Clinton’s so-called cuts!
The conflation – by the right, of Hilter with Saddam is really very funny! Hitler was sinking our supply boats and passenger lines in the Atlantic – as well as invading and threatening our true allies of Western Europe – Saddam was a paper tiger – a bad man of our own making – who was a convenient ally when using chem weapons against iran – weapons we helped him aquire, a tin-plated dictator crushed in 1993 and weak as a kitten by ten years of sanctions. There was NO military purpose of invading Iraq – particularly with bin laden on the run in Afghanistan/Pakistan – and the Taliban regrouping…
Actually Warped, that comparison of Saddam’s Iraq 2yrs after 911, and Hitler’s Germany 3-4yrs after invading Poland…there’s some merit to that. Today’s war-threats are not from vast armadas of ships, or huge lines of marching troops, or swarms of bombers, or nuclear firepower. The threat is asymetric, and as an asymetric threat Saddam’s Iraq was definitely the biggest threat. Even bi-partisan reports and post-war investigations by fmr WMD inspectors confirm that. Hell, even it was one of the ONLY things the CIA was willing to stand up and say about Iraq between 91101 and 32003 (92101PDB, “Iraqi Support for Terrorism 2002” and 2003 versions, “Interpretting a Murky Relationship 2002-CIA Pub 2002”, and more). Saddam was only a conventional “paper tiger”, and I strongly dare you to make that claim face to face w someone who took part in the invasion of Iraq.
In your second post, you’ve got some rantings about patriotism etc. Well, I think the liberal left is starting to be a little more introspective than you are, and they’re starting to see that yeah…today’s American faux liberals do NOT love America like conservatives do.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein26-2008dec26,0,5178459.column
There is no denying Saddam used the Third Reich as a model just as there is no denying the ties Arabs had to the Nazis during WW2.
But that’s getting off point now isn’t it?
Interesting how defeatists constantly whine about how we should have better forseen the consequences of action in removing Saddam and yet they themselves are incapable of forseeing the consequences of leaving Saddam in power.
We’re much better off on the course President Bush has charted.
Even Obama realizes that.
It seems Warped has missed the reality boat!
Probably not the first time that has happened.
I blame Bushchenyburton and their neocon handler cronies for this
“Interesting how defeatists constantly whine about how we should have better forseen the consequences of action in removing Saddam and yet they themselves are incapable of forseeing the consequences of leaving Saddam in power.”
What were those consequences? let me guess: nuclear attacks on NYC? You’re a paranoid coward – that’s what you are…
“…who was a convenient ally when using chem weapons against iran – weapons we helped him aquire…” (Warpublican Review)
Only leftists are so ill informed about everything. Here are the facts:
– During Saddam ruling (1979 to 2003), Iraqis war material that came from the USA was only 0,6%
– Here are the countries who contributed the most to armed the Iraqis during that period:
URSS (60,6%), China (14,7%) and France (14,5%)
Sources: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
And now let’s get the right number of casualties for the War in Iraq;
NUMBER of Iraqi civilians killed in Iraq:
According to Iraq Body Count, there was between 89,959 – 98,218 deaths in Iraq from the beginning of the war up to today (2008).
Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.
Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents. (more in About IBC)
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
“There is no denying Saddam used the Third Reich as a model just as there is no denying the ties Arabs had to the Nazis during WW2.”
Saddam used the third reich as a model? Except for that taking over the world bit – right? And those concentration camps?
Who else had ties to the nazis?
The Italians…
The japanese.
The Soviets – before they didn’t…
and WHY would the Arabs have TIES to the nazis?
It wouldn’t have ANYTHING to do with british colonial policy – nah – they’re just EVIL…
Of course it’s Bush’s fault Scott! Didn’t you hear that even as Governor of Texas he and Dick Cheney, Chairman of Halliburton were able to cook the intelligence that Clinton relied on regarding Iraq?
warp’ed…
You bet your bippy I’m comparing 911 to Pearl Harbor. An act of war is an act of war. And for too long in the 90s was it ignored. BTW, I did not compare Hitler and Saddam. *You* did. Comes from being reading challenged. Maybe you should lay off the reality shows and Desperate Housewives, eh?
What I compared was an assault (and not the first one) on US soil, assets and interests… only this one by cowardly, stateless thugs instead of nations. And the military response not necessarily or solely directed at the offending party. Global military strategy.
And Scott has it completely right, and eloquently put. This is not a war like previous wars. This is urban warfare, and the enemy has no rules…. That, and all the criticism associated for “breaking the rules” is reserved for America. Even by such quasi-patriots as yourself.
Which of course makes your post calling Mike’sA a “paranoid coward” even more hilarious. In my perfect world, our military would use effeminate guys like you as a shield (thus the reason I always addressed you as “Ms”). But instead, they protect your sorry ass, and leave the cowardly warfare – hiding behind women, children, the disabled and men in burkas – to our enemy. The enemy you appear not to recognize.
Germany didn’t devastate Pearl Harbor (it was Japan, fool…). (or perhaps in your “higher education” world, it’s “devestate”…) Thus goes any chance of you saying “Iraq didn’t invade the US” – and defending your global military theatre analysis – with any credibility.
So why don’t you give us an example of a US war that was won without the support of the population. Try to come up with an answer before I hit full fledged social security, please. But that ain’t likely.
Since you are 180 degrees from a conservative, you are unqualified to assess how conservatives view either Reagan or Palin, least of all how we “compare” them. And I believe the “second coming” bit belongs to your party, and your witless adoration of a guy you know nothing about… save your refusal to believe his “just words”.
I see Santa didn’t bring you that history book, nor even newspapers going back to the abduction of the two French journalists. Otherwise you’d know of their plans for a Caliphate from Spain to China. After then, then you’d know they want to rid the world of any trace of zionists/infidel/western culture.
Humm… how much of “the world” is left after that for “taking over”?
As for the concentration camps… yup. You’re right. They don’t take prisoners. Just body parts.
Here you are… after your less than shining entry into this forum, still parroting the same ol’ BS progressive/Code Pink talking points. You are an embarrassment as a voter. And not even interesting as a human.
“Saddam used the third reich as a model? Except for that taking over the world bit – right?” (Warpublican Review)
Hey War, get some education. Watch this video, you will see where Saddam fits in the portray at the end of the video:
WW2: 1941-1945 Hitler Grand Mufti Nazi Islam 02
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JtNAcCXYK6M&eurl=http://www.antagoniste.net/?cat=44&paged=2
@Warpublican Review:
Is that why majority military votes consistenty go to Republicans, including in these last 3 presidential elections? Because they’re “exploited” by Republicans? I imagine many voting Republican are registered as such. If that’s the case, what does that tell you? That they’re exploiting themselves?
Republicans don’t own patriotism; but Democrats sure seem all too willing to wash their hands of it. “Flag-waving” patriotism isn’t just superficial surface support; it cuts skin-deep. The cynicism might be deserved in certain instances, but you will always be able to find exceptions, just as you will be able to find patriotic Democrats who do support our military.
But here’s something to ponder, as told by CJ:
I’m sure you can find war-supporters as well, who don’t really support the troops in any meaningful way, other than the lip-service you believe Republicans give; but at least they don’t undermine the mission and endanger lives by giving aid and comfort to America’s enemies and critics. Most of those I know of who do support the war, actively show their support by sending care packages, offer well-wishes, fund soldier support charities, express gratitude and recognize the service and sacrifice.
Do you ever talk to Vietnam Vets regarding their feelings toward Jane Fonda? For every John Kerry vet, you’ll find scores who don’t think highly of her.
Of course there are complicated reasons and arguments that amount to our “loss” in Vietnam; the most shameful of which was decision by Congress in 1975 to abandon support for our Vietnamese allies- support that was promised them in a written pledge by Nixon.
Are you living in denial that media coverage of negativity- which includes anti-war protests- don’t influence morale and public opinion or give aid and comfort to the enemy?
James Q. Wilson’s article, The Press at War, is a read worth your time.
On the day and year of my birth, the “most trusted man in America” told the American public at the end of his broadcast:
Upon hearing of Cronkite’s statement, Lyndon Johnson remarked, “If I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America.”
The influence of the media and coverage of the war, and the perspective taken and pushed, cannot be underestimated.
Not at all. But the left has been all too happy to highlight, underscore, and magnify the negatives and write the narrative on Vietnam and America as “imperialist nation”. Your side learns all the wrong lessons of history.
Perhaps you know something I don’t. If you do, please educate me. It’s a serious request. What do you know about Giap’s statements that amounts to a “lie”?
Here’s what I “know”:
By Gene Kuentzler:
During the Philippine Insurrection between 1898-1902 (the “official” end-date, even though fighting still went on), prominent individuals- celebrities of the time like Mark Twain- condemned the “pacification” war going on over there. The leader of the insurrection, Aguinaldo, intensified his guerilla warfare activities in the months preceding the 1900 presidential election (recall al Qaeda statements in ’04 and ’06), hoping that the “anti-imperialist” candidate, William Jennings Bryan, would win.
Some Democratic Party supporters actually hoped the Filipino insurrection would succeed against our “imperialist” efforts, choosing to condemn our atrocities…and American soldiers resented these anti-war protesters much as they are resented today, and were resented by normal Americans during Vietnam.
Medal of Honor recepient, Major General Henry Lawton said: “If I am shot by a Filipino bullet, it might just as well come from one of my own men….because….the continuance of the fighting is chiefly due to reports that are sent from America.”
A few weeks later, he was killed by an insurgent sharpshooter.
I’ve actually abandoned that line of argument, after reading a comment by an Iraqi on an Iraqi blog. Call it the bleeding heart conservative in me, but it’s insensitive and bad PR to say it’s great to fight America’s enemy in someone else’s backyard, ruining their turnip patch, breaking their windows, and having the family who lives there caught in the crossfire.
But what lie? I really think you fail to understand the connection between Saddam’s Iraq and how it relates to the GWoT. And I’m pretty darn sure it’s been pointed out to you time and time again. But you’re stuck on lefty. So I won’t waste any more of my cyber-ink….
…for now.
I missed where Warped Mind called me a “paranoid coward.”
Is there something about simple exercises in “what if” that deserve such abuse?
Is Warped just so afraid to consider the possibilities of inaction that he/she/it has to resort to that sort of tactic?
Sorry posse pals but this loon is beginning to reach the point where he/she/it no longer contributes to any useful, positive discussion.
As a devotee of the history of Winston Churchill who assigned the borders of much of the middle east I could expound further on the subject but it would clearly be a waste of time to attempt to educate Warped Mind. But again, I would just suggest that he/she/it consider the consequences of inaction.
And as for Saddam using the Third Reich as a model for a police state, there is a very good history channel program on that subject for those who haven’t the patience for long reads.
Something tells me Warped Mind hasn’t the patience for long reads or short ones either. Much easier to vehemently shout the defeatist talking points over and over again as if that makes them valid.
See comment #18, Mike. Truly a laugh, coming from him.
Yeah, I caught it on the second go round. Astonishing that someone could take such a myopic view towards events. The first thing I was taught in all my National Security courses was to consider all options and the consequences that might flow from each. Surely the consequences and outcome from the Bush plan are far superior to following the Clinton model which was to talk alot and do nothing.
We may have to set some standards for intellectual integrity and competancy before giving more thoughtful consideration to people like Warped. Otherwise we will just be wasting our time.
Obama Visits Marines in Hawaïi… Met With Silence
Friday, December 26, 2008
“As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/obama-visits-marines-met-with-silence.html
What a difference of greetings when Georges W. Bush visits the troops:
Woah! US Troops in Iraq Give Bush a Tremendous Sendoff!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=j6epBwrGNhs
Actually vietnam is a bit like your present financial crisis, which was caused mainly by your democratic party. The whole mess started with some elitist liberals thinking that since they could go to the moon, they could regime-change and defeat half a country of bitter orientals supported by china and the communists of that time.
Never mind the orientals had defeated the french. Never mind they were denied elections.
We’ll just go there and beat them up cause we are elitists and we know best.
The liberals of that time screwed up badly in vietnam while George Bush has made an INCREDIBLE SUCCESS in Iraq. All the leaders outside america respect and fear him, even if they don’t say it. George Bush should be given the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for the humanitarian way he conducted the war in Iraq.
What did you americans do in vietnam???? Drop more bombs that the whole of WW2. Killed maybe 2M vietnamese civilians. Now that’s GENOCIDE. Who supported the war??? New York Times, Time Magazine, the present liberal establishment. And what happened???? You lost.
All of us chinese outside america know that the elitist, socialist liberals are the real warmongers, genocidal maniacs and war criminals in america. They just became pacifists temporarily after losing big big in vietnam. Every single democrat of yours from the past should be charged for genocide and war crimes and if found guilty, hung.
You americans should learn never to start wars when your democrats are in power. You will always lose big time.
As for George Bush, he will be a highly respected president outside america, a POTUS with “stones”. Whereas Clinton only was known for his love of interns. When America’s first Pornstar President Clinton came to SEAsia to give lectures, it was like a few $K a seat. Everyone was saying, how many girls do we send to his room after that??? 3?? 4??? Does he like them well padded??? Ruebenesque???
“You americans should learn never to start wars when your democrats are in power. You will always lose big time.” (Sigmundringeck)
I agree with you 100%.
“George Bush has made an INCREDIBLE SUCCESS in Iraq. All the leaders outside america respect and fear him, even if they don’t say it. George Bush should be given the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE for the humanitarian way he conducted the war in Iraq.” (Sigmundringeck)
And here I agree 200% with you.
Keeping them, but not keeping them happy. Now we enter the what to do, what to do phase of Obama’s 16 month plan to pull out of Iraq. Does Obama continue to let Medea Benjamin, the Kos Kids and MoveOn.org pull on those great big ears or does he listen to his commanders? And, what consequences is he willing to bear? What the irrational idiots that support his party might do, or follow the advice of the seasoned “Bush war leaders” that are telling him the time is not right to leave Iraq within the Obama timetable?
He just might not want to mess with these guys:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45640