Arizona Sports Fans Network  

Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Other Stuff > Politics and Religion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 4th, 2007, 11:41 AM   #1
SweetD
Next Up
 
SweetD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Age: 38
Posts: 9,117

History of War


[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Normaly I don't post here much but this email I recieved has made me rethink my possition on the war and if anything encouraged me to do my own reading of the full history of wars.[/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif'][/FONT]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']> Regardless of how you feel about the war in Iraq, this article is worth reading.
> MOST OF YOU May REMEMBER THAT NEARLY EVERY FAMILY IN AMERICA WAS GROSSLY AFFECTED BY WW II . MOST OF YOU DON'T REMEMBER THE RATIONING OF MEAT, SHOES, GASOLINE, AND SUGAR . NO TIRES FOR OUR AUTOMOBILES, AND A SPEED LIMIT OF 35 MILES AN HOUR ON THE ROAD . NOT TO MENTION, NO NEW AUTOMOBILES . READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD REACT TO BEING TAKEN OVER BY FOREIGNERS IN 2007 .
>
> This is an EXCELLENT essay . Well thought out and presented .
>
> Historical Significance
>
> Sixty-three years ago, Nazi Germany had overrun almost all of Europe and hammered England to the verge of bankruptcy and defeat . The Nazis had sunk more than 400 British ships in their convoys between England and America taking food and war materials .
>
> At that time the US was in an isolationist, pacifist mood, and most Americans wanted nothing to do with the European or the Asian war .
>
> Then along came Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and in outrage Congress unanimously declared war on Japan , and the following day on Germany , who had not yet attacked us . It was a dicey thing . We had few allies .
>
> France was not an ally, as the Vichy government of France quickly aligned itself with its German occupiers . Germany was certainly not an ally, as Hitler was intent on setting up a Thousand Year Reich in Europe . Japan was not an ally, as it was well on its way to owning and controlling all of Asia .
>
> Together, Japan and Germany had long-range plans of invading Canada and Mexico , as launching pads to get into the United States over our northern and southern borders, after they finished gaining control of Asia and Europe .
>
> America 's only allies then were England , Ireland , Scotland , Canada , Australia , and Russia . That was about it . All of Europe, from Norway to Italy (except Russia in the East) was already under the Nazi heel .
>
> The US was certainly not prepared for war . The US had drastically downgraded most of its military forces after WW I because of the depression, so that at the outbreak of WW II, Army units were training with broomsticks because they didn't have guns, and cars with "tank" painted on the doors because they didn't have real tanks . A huge chunk of our Navy had just been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor .
>
> Britain had already gone bankrupt, saved only by the donation of $600 million in gold bullion in the Bank of England (that was actually the property of Belgium ) given by Belgium to England to carry on the war when Belgium was overrun by Hitler (a little known fact) .
>
> Actually, Belgium surrendered on one day, because it was unable to oppose the German invasion, and the Germans bombed Brussels into rubble the next day just to prove they could .
>
> Britain had already been holding out for two years in the face of staggering losses and the near decimation of its Royal Air Force in the Battle of Britain, and was saved from being overrun by Germany only because Hitler made the mistake of thinking the Brits were a relatively minor threat that could be dealt with later . Hitler, first turned his attention to Russia , in the late summer of 1940 at a time when England was on the verge of collapse .
>
> Ironically, Russia saved America 's butt by putting up a desperate fight for two years, until the US got geared up to begin hammering away at Germany .
>
> Russia lost something like 24,000,000 people in the sieges of Stalingrad and Moscow alone . . . 90% of them from cold and starvation, mostly civilians, but also more than a 1,000,000 soldiers
>
> Had Russia surrendered, Hitler would have been able to focus his entire war effort against the Brits, then America If that had happened, the Nazis could possibly have won the war .
>
> All of this has been brought out to illustrate that turning points in history are often dicey things . Now, we find ourselves at another one of those key moments in history .
>
> There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has, or wants, and may soon have, the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world .
>
> The Jihadis, the militant Muslims, are basically Nazis in Kaffiyahs -- they believe that Islam, a radically conservative form of Wahhabi Islam, should own and control the Middle East first, then Europe, then the world . To them, all who do not bow to their will of thinking should be killed, enslaved, or subjugated . They want to finish the Holocaust, destroy Israel , and purge the world of Jews . This is their mantra . (goal)
>
> There is also a civil war raging in the Middle East -- for the most part not a hot war, but a war of ideas . Islam is having its Inquisition and its Reformation, but it is not yet known which side will win -- the Inquisitors, or the Reformationists .
>
> If the Inquisition wins, then the Wahhabis, the Jihadis, will control the Middle East, the OPEC oil, and the US , European, and Asian economies
>
> The techno-industrial economies will be at the mercy of OPEC -- not an OPEC dominated by the educated, rational Saudis of today, but an OPEC dominated by the Jihadis . Do you want gas in your car? Do you want heating oil next winter? Do you want the dollar to be worth anything? You had better hope the Jihad, the Muslim Inquisition, loses, and the Islamic Reformation wins .
>
> If the Reformation movement wins, that is, the moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can respect and tolerate other religions, live in peace with the rest of the world, and move out of the 10th century into the 21st, then the troubles in the Middle East will eventually fade away . A moderate and prosperous Middle East will emerge .
>
> We have to help the Reformation win, and to do that we have to fight the Inquisition, i . e . , the Wahhabi movement, the Jihad, Al Qaeda and the Islamic terrorist movements . We have to do it somewhere . We can't do it everywhere at once . We have created a focal point for the battle at a time and place of our choosing . . . . . . . . in Iraq . Not in New York , not in London , or Paris or Berlin , but in Iraq , where we are doing two important things .
>
> (1) We deposed Saddam Hussein . Whether Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 terrorist attack or not, it is undisputed that Saddam has been actively supporting the terrorist movement for decades Saddam is a terrorist! Saddam is, or was, a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of probably more than a 1,000,000 Iraqis and 2,000,000 Iranians .
>
> (2) We created a battle, a confrontation, a flash point, with Islamic terrorism in Iraq We have focused the battle . We are killing bad people, and the ones we get there we won't have to get here . We also have a good shot at creating a democratic, peaceful Iraq , which will be a catalyst for democratic change in the rest of the Middle East, and an outpost for a stabilizing American military presence in the Middle East for as long as it is needed .
>
> WW II, the war with the Japanese and German Nazis, really began with a "whimper" in 1928 . It did not begin with Pearl Harbor . It began with the Japanese invasion of China . It was a war for fourteen years before the US joined it . It officially ended in 1945 -- a 17 year war -- and was followed by another decade of US occupation in Germany and Japan to get those countries reconstructed and running on their own a gain . . . a 27 year war .
>
> WW II cost the United States an amount equal to approximately a full year's GDP -- adjusted for inflation, equal to about $12 trillion dollars . WW II cost America more than 400,000 soldiers killed in action, and nearly 100,000 still missing in action .
>
> The Iraq war has, so far, cost the United States about $160,000,000,000, which is roughly what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York It has also cost about 2,200 American lives, which is roughly 2/3 of the 3,000 lives that the Jihad killed (within the United States) in the 9/11 terrorist attack .
>
> The cost of not fighting and winning WW II would have been unimaginably greater -- a world dominated by Japanese Imperialism and German Nazism .
>
> This is not a 60-Minutes TV show, or a 2-hour movie in which everything comes out okay . The real world is not like that . It is messy, uncertain, and sometimes bloody and ugly It always has been, and probably always will be .
>
> The bottom line is that we will have to deal with Islamic terrorism until we defeat it, whenever that is . It will not go away if we ignore it .
>
> If the US can create a reasonably democratic and stable Iraq , then we have an ally, like England , in the Middle East, a platform, from which we can work to help modernize and moderate the Middle East . The history of the world is the clash between the forces of relative civility and civilization, and the barbarians clamoring at the gates to conquer the world .
>
> The Iraq War is merely another battle in this ancient and never ending war . Now, for the first time ever, the barbarians are about to get nuclear weapons . Unless some body prevents them from getting them .
>
> We have four options:
>
> 1 . We can defeat the Jihad now, before it gets nuclear weapons .
>
> 2 . We can fight the Jihad later, after it gets nuclear weapons (which may be as early as next year, if Iran 's progress on nuclear weapons is what Iran claims it is)
>
> 3 . We can surrender to the Jihad and accept its dominance in the Middle East now; in Europe in the next few years or decades, and ultimately in America
>
> OR
>
> 4 . We can stand down now, and pick up the fight later when the Jihad is more widespread and better armed, perhaps after the Jihad has dominated France and Germany and possibly most of the rest of Europe . It will, of course, be more dangerous, more expensive, and much bloodier .
>
> If you oppose this war, I hope you like the idea that your children, or grandchildren, may live in an Islamic America under the Mullahs and the Sharia, an America that resembles Iran today .
>
> The history of the world is the history of civilization clashes, cultural clashes . All wars are about ideas, ideas about what society and civilization should be like, and the most determined always win .
>
> Those who are willing to be the most ruthless always win . The pacifists always lose, because the anti-pacifists kill them .
>
> Remember, perspective is every thing, and America 's schools teach too little history for perspective to be clear, especially in the young American mind .
>
> The Cold War lasted from about 1947 at least until the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 . Forty-two years .
>
> Europe spent the first half of the 19th century fighting Napoleon, and from 1870 to 1945 fighting Germany !
>
> World War II began in 1928, lasted 17 years, plus a ten year occupation, and the US still has troops in Germany and Japan . World War II resulted in the death of more than 50,000,000 people, maybe more than 100,000,000 people, depending on which estimates you accept .
>
> The US has taken more than 2,000 killed in action in Iraq The US took more than 4,000 killed in action on the morning of June 6, 1944, the first day of the Normandy Invasion to rid Europe of Nazi Imperialism .
>
> In WW II the US averaged 2,000 KIA a week -- for four years . Most of the individual battles of WW II lost more Americans than the entire Iraq war has done so far .
>
> The stakes are at least as high . . . A world dominated by representative governments with civil rights, human rights, and personal freedoms . . or a world dominated by a radical Islamic Wahhabi movement, by the Jihad, under the Mullahs and the Sharia (Islamic law) .
>
> It's difficult to understand why the average American does not grasp this They favor human rights, civil rights, liberty and freedom, but evidently not for Iraqis .
>
> "Peace Activists" always seem to demonstrate here in America , where it's safe .
>
> Why don't we see Peace Activist demonstrating in Iran , Syria , Iraq , Sudan , North Korea , in the places that really need peace activism the most? I'll tell you! They would be killed!
>
> The liberal mentality is supposed to favor human rights, civil rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc . , but if the Jihad wins, wherever the Jihad wins, it is the end of civil rights, human rights, democracy, multiculturalism, diversity, etc .
>
> Americans who oppose the liberation of Iraq are coming down on the side of their own worst enemy .
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
> Raymond S . Kraft is a writer living in Northern California that has studied the Middle Eastern culture and religion .
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
>
> Please consider passing along copies of this article to students in high school, college and university as it contains information about the American past that is very meaningful today -- history about America that very likely is completely unknown by them (and their instructors, too) . By being denied the facts of our history, they are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to reasoning and thinking through the issues of today . They are prime targets for misinformation campaigns beamed at enlisting them in causes and beliefs that are special interest agenda driven [/FONT]
SweetD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2007, 01:50 PM   #2
arthurracoon
The Cardinal Smiles
 
arthurracoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nashville
Age: 27
Posts: 16,513
definately well written and thought provoking

good article
__________________
Signed,

arthurpostpadder

arthurracoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2007, 07:29 PM   #3
se7en
Go SUNS Go
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 900
Iraq was not involved in 911, they did not support Al Qaeda and they did not have WMD's. What this article really should have said is that during WWII, we should have declared war on Brazil or Switzerland. Oh wait, bad example. Those countries were Nazi sympathizers.

I guess the best thing to do is attack the actual countries that harbor terrorists. But wait, that would be countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria - All countries who are supposed to be working with the U.S.

Or maybe we should have attacked the countries that actually have WMD's and have actually threatened America and its allies - Iran and North Korea. Oh wait, I remember why we didn't attack the countries who are actual threats. North Korea doesn't have oil and we weren't able to "fabricate" enough evidence against Iran to justify war.

I wish people would stop equating the near world domination by Germany to the mere nuisance that was Iraq (because of the Bush PR machine). They have absolutely nothing in common and this white house press release/chain letter won't change that.

This region of the world has been fighting for thousands of years and the U.S.A. isn't going to change that - other than to stir it up and make it worse.

This is about the control of oil, nothing more, nothing less. Just check the profit statements of the oil companies for proof.
se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2007, 07:44 PM   #4
40yearfan
DEFENSE!!!!
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Posts: 32,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by se7en View Post
Iraq was not involved in 911, they did not support Al Qaeda and they did not have WMD's. What this article really should have said is that during WWII, we should have declared war on Brazil or Switzerland. Oh wait, bad example. Those countries were Nazi sympathizers.

I guess the best thing to do is attack the actual countries that harbor terrorists. But wait, that would be countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Syria - All countries who are supposed to be working with the U.S.

Or maybe we should have attacked the countries that actually have WMD's and have actually threatened America and its allies - Iran and North Korea. Oh wait, I remember why we didn't attack the countries who are actual threats. North Korea doesn't have oil and we weren't able to "fabricate" enough evidence against Iran to justify war.

I wish people would stop equating the near world domination by Germany to the mere nuisance that was Iraq (because of the Bush PR machine). They have absolutely nothing in common and this white house press release/chain letter won't change that.

This region of the world has been fighting for thousands of years and the U.S.A. isn't going to change that - other than to stir it up and make it worse.

This is about the control of oil, nothing more, nothing less. Just check the profit statements of the oil companies for proof.
So you're saying that that article was really written by a White House hack and has no merit what-so-ever?
40yearfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 4th, 2007, 07:54 PM   #5
se7en
Go SUNS Go
 
se7en's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 900
That is correct. Not only does it have no merit, not only was it written by a rightwing-Christian nut job (just Google his name and you'll see the sites that he shows up on), it is also historically inaccurate. Click the link to read the full story.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...mond_kraft.htm

Rebuttal to Raymond Kraft's "The Death of Liberalism"

By image - October 28, 2004

This piece is in response to The Death of Liberalism. Please read Mr. Kraft's article before proceeding.

Note: The title of this article was changed to "Why are we in Iraq", and it is no longer hosted by its original publishers.

Wow, where to begin with this? There is actually one major point in this piece that I agree with, which is that "liberals" should not be supporting or sympathizing with Islamic fundamentalists, and that liberals should be the ones encouraging American sacrifice in order to help improve the lives of people in the Middle East. There are, in fact, some liberals who do take multiculturalism too far, to the point of supporting oppressive practices of other cultures. That, however, is about as far as the agreements go.

The only other point on which I agree with Mr. Kraft is this comment: "Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history."

That's certainly true, however I have a feeling that he isn't thinking of the same history that I am thinking of, and this gets to the point, because it is Mr. Kraft's lack of historical accuracy and historical framework that contributes to his, and many American's, misperceptions about not only our past, but also our present and how we address situations like the problem we face in Iraq today.

Mr. Kraft starts with a stirring account of the events leading up to and surrounding World War II, telling of the rise of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism and the all too sad reluctance of "Americans" to engage these threats in their infancy.

What this "conservative" fails to address, however, is that there was, in fact, a
se7en is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 07:00 AM   #6
40yearfan
DEFENSE!!!!
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Posts: 32,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by se7en View Post
That is correct. Not only does it have no merit, not only was it written by a rightwing-Christian nut job (just Google his name and you'll see the sites that he shows up on), it is also historically inaccurate. Click the link to read the full story.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...mond_kraft.htm

Rebuttal to Raymond Kraft's "The Death of Liberalism"

By image - October 28, 2004

This piece is in response to The Death of Liberalism. Please read Mr. Kraft's article before proceeding.

Note: The title of this article was changed to "Why are we in Iraq", and it is no longer hosted by its original publishers.

Wow, where to begin with this? There is actually one major point in this piece that I agree with, which is that "liberals" should not be supporting or sympathizing with Islamic fundamentalists, and that liberals should be the ones encouraging American sacrifice in order to help improve the lives of people in the Middle East. There are, in fact, some liberals who do take multiculturalism too far, to the point of supporting oppressive practices of other cultures. That, however, is about as far as the agreements go.

The only other point on which I agree with Mr. Kraft is this comment: "Remember, perspective is everything, and America's schools teach too little history."

That's certainly true, however I have a feeling that he isn't thinking of the same history that I am thinking of, and this gets to the point, because it is Mr. Kraft's lack of historical accuracy and historical framework that contributes to his, and many American's, misperceptions about not only our past, but also our present and how we address situations like the problem we face in Iraq today.

Mr. Kraft starts with a stirring account of the events leading up to and surrounding World War II, telling of the rise of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism and the all too sad reluctance of "Americans" to engage these threats in their infancy.

What this "conservative" fails to address, however, is that there was, in fact, a
What he is saying is that prior to WWII and during that period, the liberals were the neocons and the conservatives were the isolationists. I agree with that, but I don't know how that discredits Krafts points. Kraft is talking about the Muslim problem and how it affects us today. What does that have to do with who was the hawk or dove during WWII? Also what difference does it make what hate groups America has. Does he honestly expect us to believe they poise more of a threat than Islamic fundamentalists?

Talk about throwing flack up to defer and deflect, this guy is all over the map. Then he talks about us funding the Islamists in the 70's and 80's. Duh---we now know that that was a major mistake. What does that have to do with the current situation we find ourselves in? We made our own mess? Who cares. We are where we are. Crying and moaning and complaining about the past will get you exactly nothing. What are you going to do about the here and now?

All this guy does is complain about GW and how he mishandled the war. Nothing from him as to what he would do to fix the problem. Only just complain about it. Typical anti-war fodder. If you are going to be against something, at least offer an alternative.
40yearfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 07:43 AM   #7
Broncogirl1
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40yearfan View Post
Talk about throwing flack up to defer and deflect, this guy is all over the map. Then he talks about us funding the Islamists in the 70's and 80's. Duh---we now know that that was a major mistake. What does that have to do with the current situation we find ourselves in? We made our own mess? Who cares. We are where we are. Crying and moaning and complaining about the past will get you exactly nothing. What are you going to do about the here and now?
So, you're saying that this administration can just keep screwing up and not be held accountable for its gross misjudgment and deadly mistakes? Won't anyone in this administration be held accountable for this debacle? Paul Bremer's debathification is the main reason for the failure of this policy. Will he be held to account? No. Conversley, he is awarded the Medal of Freedeom, along with Tenet. Both men, as this administration, are a disgrace to democracy and most of all to our country.

Any factual criticism of this failed policy is mislabeled as "emboldening the enemy" and "cut and run" and the like. Meanwhile, bodies (both American and Iraqi) keep piling up. How high do the bodies have to pile up before war supporters such as you say ENOUGH!! Perhaps if each family sustained a member being needlessly killed or mamed for this failed policy, people will start to wake up. As Tony Snow said about the 3,000 dead benchmark, "it's just a number". How would you feel if yours or a family member's life was discussed in such a callous manner. "That's just the fact of war". That doesn't cut it for people like me who are sickened by our brave men and women being sent to their deaths for a war born on a lie. Meanwhile, security at home is weaker and weaker. Of course, with the way war supporters think, if we were "hit again" as Dick Cheney always likes to throw out there, people who support this war and this president would think "thank god Bush's is in office". Why don't you ask the American citizens down in the gulf coast what they think of this administration's policies.

Now, try to respond without attacking me personally FOR ONCE!!

Last edited by Broncogirl1; February 5th, 2007 at 07:52 AM.
Broncogirl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 09:10 AM   #8
40yearfan
DEFENSE!!!!
 
40yearfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ.
Posts: 32,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncogirl1 View Post
So, you're saying that this administration can just keep screwing up and not be held accountable for its gross misjudgment and deadly mistakes? Won't anyone in this administration be held accountable for this debacle? Paul Bremer's debathification is the main reason for the failure of this policy. Will he be held to account? No. Conversley, he is awarded the Medal of Freedeom, along with Tenet. Both men, as this administration, are a disgrace to democracy and most of all to our country.

What has this got to do with the Muslim menace we are facing? Did you read the article? It's about Jihad and what that means to this country. Try staying on topic instead of just going into a anti-GW rant.

Any factual criticism of this failed policy is mislabeled as "emboldening the enemy" and "cut and run" and the like. Meanwhile, bodies (both American and Iraqi) keep piling up. How high do the bodies have to pile up before war supporters such as you say ENOUGH!! Perhaps if each family sustained a member being needlessly killed or mamed for this failed policy, people will start to wake up. As Tony Snow said about the 3,000 dead benchmark, "it's just a number". How would you feel if yours or a family member's life was discussed in such a callous manner. "That's just the fact of war". That doesn't cut it for people like me who are sickened by our brave men and women being sent to their deaths for a war born on a lie. Meanwhile, security at home is weaker and weaker. Of course, with the way war supporters think, if we were "hit again" as Dick Cheney always likes to throw out there, people who support this war and this president would think "thank god Bush's is in office". Why don't you ask the American citizens down in the gulf coast what they think of this administration's policies.

What makes you think you are the only one concerned with the death of our young people? There were times during WWII that we lost that many people in a day. Did those people die in vain like you seem to think these people are doing? People get killed in wars. Nasty, but sometimes inevitable.

You love to critisize but other than cut and run, I don't see any strategy coming from you to fix the problem and if you don't have a fix, then let the people who are involved make the decisions.

Security at home is weaker and weaker? I don't know where you come up with this stuff. Try reading something with a little less bias ocassionally.

The Gulf Coast people have no one to thank but their own local representatives. The money poured into that area and stopped at the local government level. Please put the blame where it belongs.


Now, try to respond without attacking me personally FOR ONCE!!
The first time I responded to one of your posts, I paid you a compliment and you replied by tearing my head off. I don't take kindly to that kind of behaviour.
40yearfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 09:56 AM   #9
Broncogirl1
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
"You love to criticize but other than cut and run, I don't see any strategy coming from you to fix the problem and if you don't have a fix, then let the people who are involved make the decisions."



Oh, really? I am involved. I'm an American citizen that makes me inherently involved. The "Decider" and his administration got us into this mess that you support. But instead of owning up to this administration's failed policies and asking them to take responsibility you simply spout your tired old rhetoric.

The real "Decider" (the voting public) decided in November: Enough of this failed policy. In case you haven't noticed, the US is in Iraq virtually alone. The campaign in Afghanistan is a complete failure because this Administration redeployed our troops to Iraq and left Afghanistan behind to burn. Criticizing the multiple failings of this administration is not "Bush Bashing". It's calling it what it is: a failed foreign policy.


I suppose you are of the mindset that critisizing Israeli foreign policy is anti semitic?


So, tell me, how are we going to win this war you support so vehemently?

By the way, I get my news from CSPAN, Reuters, Guardian.UK, Army Times, Military.Com, and other well-respected sources. Give it a try!!
Broncogirl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 10:00 AM   #10
82CardsGrad
7 x 70
 
82CardsGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Scottsdale
Age: 50
Posts: 22,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncogirl1 View Post
"You love to criticize but other than cut and run, I don't see any strategy coming from you to fix the problem and if you don't have a fix, then let the people who are involved make the decisions."



Oh, really? I am involved. I'm an American citizen that makes me inherently involved. The "Decider" and his administration got us into this mess that you support. But instead of owning up to this administration's failed policies and asking them to take responsibility you simply spout your tired old rhetoric.

The real "Decider" (the voting public) decided in November: Enough of this failed policy. In case you haven't noticed, the US is in Iraq virtually alone. The campaign in Afghanistan is a complete failure because this Administration redeployed our troops to Iraq and left Afghanistan behind to burn. Criticizing the multiple failings of this administration is not "Bush Bashing". It's calling it what it is: a failed foreign policy.


I suppose you are of the mindset that critisizing Israeli foreign policy is anti semitic?


So, tell me, how are we going to win this war you support so vehemently?

By the way, I get my news from CSPAN, Reuters, Guardian.UK, Army Times, Military.Com, and other well-respected sources. Give it a try!!

Yikes...

So if the "voting public" spoke up in November, and those that they spoke for in the Senate voted unanimously in favor of Patraeus, and Patraeus backs the new strategy, why then are those the "voting public" spoke for saying that the man they voted in really doesn't know what he's talking about??
82CardsGrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 10:18 AM   #11
Broncogirl1
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad View Post
Yikes...

So if the "voting public" spoke up in November, and those that they spoke for in the Senate voted unanimously in favor of Patraeus, and Patraeus backs the new strategy, why then are those the "voting public" spoke for saying that the man they voted in really doesn't know what he's talking about??
Of course the Senate voted unanimously for Patraeus. What else was it supposed to do? We are in the middle of a war. That's management logistics not policy. However, the Senate also made a very lengthy record of the failings of this adminsitration's war policy during the process. Just like they did when Casey was taken to task last week. Casey will get his promotion and Patreus will assume Casey's position. What I'm speaking to is that war supporters are finding themselves increasingly in the minority and that the real deciders (the people) are growing weary. Unfortunately, IMO it will be status quo until we have a leadership change. In the interim, the grist mill continues.

You are no doubt a registered voter and your opinion counts. How would you (1) attempt to resolve this failed policy in Iraq, (2) secure our country (because we are in no way secure), and (3) solve Afghanistan?
Broncogirl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 10:30 AM   #12
82CardsGrad
7 x 70
 
82CardsGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Scottsdale
Age: 50
Posts: 22,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broncogirl1 View Post
Of course the Senate voted unanimously for Patraeus. What else was it supposed to do? We are in the middle of a war. That's management logistics not policy. However, the Senate also made a very lengthy record of the failings of this adminsitration's war policy during the process. Just like they did when Casey was taken to task last week. Casey will get his promotion and Patreus will assume Casey's position. What I'm speaking to is that war supporters are finding themselves increasingly in the minority and that the real deciders (the people) are growing weary. Unfortunately, IMO it will be status quo until we have a leadership change. In the interim, the grist mill continues.

You are no doubt a registered voter and your opinion counts. How would you (1) attempt to resolve this failed policy in Iraq, (2) secure our country (because we are in no way secure), and (3) solve Afghanistan?
You are actually funny Bg...

I don't follow your thought process however... If the "people spoke" in November, and if those they "spoke for" are now the majority in both houses, why then would they sweep in Patraeus yet tell the man he doesn't know what he's talking about?? Try to explain that one for me again because you just didn't quite get me on the first try...
As for your questions...

1.) I happen to agree with those that want to give the surge/reinforcement strategy a try. If, by the end of the summer, there is no marked improvement, then, in a strategically sound fashion, pull out of Baghdad and station our troops along the borders and up in Kurdistan. We control the borders and contain the influx of foriegn fighters, weapons and cash... We watch the Shiia and the Sunni kill themselves in their bloody battle, and when things look like too chaotic, we swoop in unannounced and blow up a few hundred insurgents...
I also think we regardless of what we do on the battlefield, we need to be more active in getting Iran, Syria, Saudi, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan to the discussion table... I honestly don't believe that will produce true meaningful results, but perception wise we need to do it...
2.) What does "secure" mean or look like to you? Are we less secure today than we were 5, 10 or 20 years ago? If believe we are, prove it...
3.) Afghanistan, just like Iraq, will not be "solved" in a timeframe that will make you happy... What does "solve" mean or look like to you? Afgahnistan is far from fixed/solved... But, it is more free today than it was 3 years ago. There will be setbacks and struggles. Why would anyone expect differently??
82CardsGrad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 10:51 AM   #13
Broncogirl1
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by 82CardsGrad View Post
You are actually funny Bg...

I don't follow your thought process however... If the "people spoke" in November, and if those they "spoke for" are now the majority in both houses, why then would they sweep in Patraeus yet tell the man he doesn't know what he's talking about?? Try to explain that one for me again because you just didn't quite get me on the first try...

First off, we don't have a majority in the Senate right now due to the man in the coma and the other democratic senator who is ill. The Senate cannot micromanage this war that is the commander and chief's responsbility. That goes to my statement about it being management logistics as opposed to policy. Those are two very different things.

As for your questions...

1.) I happen to agree with those that want to give the surge/reinforcement strategy a try. If, by the end of the summer, there is no marked improvement, then, in a strategically sound fashion, pull out of Baghdad and station our troops along the borders and up in Kurdistan. We control the borders and contain the influx of foriegn fighters, weapons and cash... We watch the Shiia and the Sunni kill themselves in their bloody battle, and when things look like too chaotic, we swoop in unannounced and blow up a few hundred insurgents...

Do you really think that 4,500 troops to Anbar Province is going to contain the violence in Ramadi, Fallujah or Haditha?? Al Anbar is geographically the largest of all of the provinces by far. It has a population of over 1.25 million!! The remaining 16,000 to Baghdad, a population of over 7 million!! How about doing everything you list above without the surge?

I also think we regardless of what we do on the battlefield, we need to be more active in getting Iran, Syria, Saudi, Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan to the discussion table... I honestly don't believe that will produce true meaningful results, but perception wise we need to do it...

Your administration won't talk to Iran or Syria, despite EVERYONE urging it to.

2.) What does "secure" mean or look like to you? Are we less secure today than we were 5, 10 or 20 years ago? If believe we are, prove it...

This administration has done absolutely nothing to secure our borders, ports, airports, etc. since 9/11. THAT WAS 6 YEARS AGO. WHAT SUBSTANTIVE MEASURES HAS THIS ADMINISTRATION TAKEN BESIDES ITS RAINBOW COLORED FEAR MONGER CHART?

3.) Afghanistan, just like Iraq, will not be "solved" in a timeframe that will make you happy... What does "solve" mean or look like to you?
Afgahnistan is far from fixed/solved... But, it is more free today than it was 3 years ago. There will be setbacks and struggles. Why would anyone expect differently??
How about the Taliban defeated once and for all and children (both girls and boys) being educated in schools where teachers are shot execution style for doing their job.
Broncogirl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 10:58 AM   #14
Derm
slippery when wet
 
Derm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe - home of the AZ Cardinals
Age: 62
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
Your administration won't talk to Iran or Syria, despite EVERYONE urging it to.
So you're not an American citizen?
Derm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2007, 11:08 AM   #15
Broncogirl1
Registered
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derm View Post
So you're not an American citizen?
Yes, I'm a citizen but that doesn't mean I have to support a president and an administration that I didn't vote for or its policies that I do not support.
Broncogirl1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
foreign policy



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
 

Latest Threads
- by D-Dogg
- by Shzm13
 




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2002 - 2014 ArizonaSportsFans.com
Inactive Reminders By Icora Web Design