Bush's War ? - Page 7 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #61 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 09:59 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 11,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimSmith View Post
Let's keep your son out of this. He isn't here speaking for himself, and, guaging the tone, it would seem you were barely able to contain the fact he is in the Military and in either Iraq or Afghanistan. If that is the case, we are all grateful for the act of stepping up to defend our great nation. Since he is not here to speak for himself it would be best to leave your son out of our petty little issues - hopefully he is focussed on the issues he faces as they are much more real and dangerous than sitting in front of a computer screen debating people we don't really know. What is the worst that can happen? You get permanently banned for life? Wow. Not much compared to what happens daily to our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The issue here is that the civilians in charge of the policy have it wrong. This isn't a military policy issue or question it is a national policy issue that is set by those elected officials in Washington. The military guys there are used to implement, not make the policy.

We can debate whether or not the Iraq invasion and the quagmire we have become embedded in is going to make our great grandchildren safer or not. To do that we have to enforce some rules of logic. One of those rules might be to require a statement that doing what we are doing in Iraq will make things in the future safer, or to paraphrase your words, "so that our great grandchildren don't have to fight the people of Iraq" be accompanied by some evidence that that is in fact a reasonable statement. Something guage the reality of the statement so the basis for its claim can become part of the debate. Otherwise it is nothing more than one of those empty chants we hear from the war supporters that we cannot understand.

So while we are all justified to believe whatever we want, because we are in America, merely stating you believe something that sounds fantastic (unreal) to others is not the same as participating in the debate.

Jim
Let me get this straight, it's OK for you to use a analogy that that in all probability is a false statement ( Great grands to pay the tab) but yet I'm not allowed to inject a statement that is whole heartily true(because he's not here)?

I don't see the logic in your debating rules, one is the future and one is the present


I'm I to be embarrassed by the little innuere of the Guage wording? You would be wrong on that too.

© All photographs and likenesses of Multipurpose are protected under copyright
law. Any use of photographs in whole or in part is strictly prohibited
unless authorization is granted in writing by copyright holder. All rights
reserved.
Multipurpose is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 10:09 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 11,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
The problem with fighting terrorists with the Military is that, for the most part, it is not the right tool for the job. We have proven that in Afghanistan. With a full multinational force, we "defeated" the Taliban, threw them out of the country. According to Pentagon estimates, they are as strong as ever.

In Iraq, there was no AQ when we Invaded. There was no civil war. Now we have both, although the civil war appears to be in a lull, which is good. While AQ is still in the country, Pentagon estimates state that worldwide they are as strong as ever. In other words, we are at square one.

The reason for that is that you don't fight a civilian terrorist organization with a military. In the history of warfare, it has never worked successfully on any scale.

The only way to fight terrorists is through a worldwide network of intelligence and police agencies that break apart cells in the many countries where terrorists work from. You only use Military for very specific, very controlled acts [training camps, weapons caches, etc]. That has proven to work very well [when did you last hear of the Red Brigade?].

I am not saying you don't go after terrorists, YOU DO. You just don't use the Military as the primary focus of the endeavor.

THAT is the primary issue I have with our Invasion of Iraq and the "War on Terror". It is a misfocused action. It does nothing to keep you son's children from having to address terrorists. It also does nothing to stop harm from the US or it Allies.
See post #44
Here again it's my opinion that is what we are establishing in both regions, but we first had to use the force of our military so we could get a foot hold to slowly incorporate the locals who also wish to expel bad guys.

© All photographs and likenesses of Multipurpose are protected under copyright
law. Any use of photographs in whole or in part is strictly prohibited
unless authorization is granted in writing by copyright holder. All rights
reserved.
Multipurpose is offline  
post #63 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 10:16 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multipurpose View Post
See post #44
Here again it's my opinion that is what we are establishing in both regions, but we first had to use the force of our military so we could get a foot hold to slowly incorporate the locals who also wish to expel bad guys.
Theoretically sounds good. But I think Vietnam episode already proved that tactic doesn't work. Then why repeat history? Winning people's heart with bullets is the stupidest thing to do.

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
post #64 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 10:25 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Jan 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 11,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 752 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by elau View Post
Theoretically sounds good. But I think Vietnam episode already proved that tactic doesn't work. Then why repeat history? Winning people's heart with bullets is the stupidest thing to do.
I hope that in the near future our arms in Iraq & Astan can be put down and using VN as the example, we all saw what happened when we pulled out ASAP.
Far, far more death after we left.

© All photographs and likenesses of Multipurpose are protected under copyright
law. Any use of photographs in whole or in part is strictly prohibited
unless authorization is granted in writing by copyright holder. All rights
reserved.
Multipurpose is offline  
post #65 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 10:57 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multipurpose View Post
Let me get this straight, it's OK for you to use a analogy that that in all probability is a false statement ( Great grands to pay the tab) but yet I'm not allowed to inject a statement that is whole heartily true(because he's not here)?

I don't see the logic in your debating rules, one is the future and one is the present


I'm I to be embarrassed by the little innuere of the Guage wording? You would be wrong on that too.

Well, lets see. I claim a thousand of my neighbors say they don't think the Iraqis, in 2003 before Shock and Awe, posed a threat to us, especially today when it is plain for all to see Saddam had no WMD or ties to Al-Qaeda. So what? I can actually quote either of my two sons on the subject, too. So what?

My point is that something unsupported that my neighbors or son believes and I quote doesn't make it "supported" by either logic or facts. Does it? Even if it is true, which it is in this case (another unsupported claim). Same if I quote my neighbors. So what?

A claim was made, through the quote of a male offspring, that Saddam and the Iraqi people were a mounting threat to Americans in America by suggesting that if we didn't take care of the threat now it would come and get us later, like when our unborn grandchildren are paying taxes. All I ask is for the claimant to make the case. I don't believe that is even remotely true. I didn't make the claim though. Another did, and it is up to the claimant to support it if they would like it to be taken as something other than a claim to have at least a 5 inch long dick without any evidence. No one is directly suggesting the male offspring may not have made such a statement, only that the statement is bullshit without logic, facts or logic and facts to back it up.

My objection to the US remaining embedded in the quagmire in Iraq is that it is costing us the steady stream of lives of our service people, and huge increases in our national debt (apparently to such an extent our President has refused to even list the cost of the war in his budget request as if that made it more affordable or the debt less real) and there is no evidence today that Saddam posed any real threat to the United States then. So there is no "business case" that can be cited that describes with facts or logic or facts and logic, how remaining in the quagmire is the best interests of America. Which is all I care about. Iraqis should care as much about Iraq.

To presume that the UN sanctions and the US enforced "no-fly" zones were not working in 2008 requires that one remain forcefully ignorant of the situation that existed in Iraq the night before Shock and Awe. Go get and actually read the Duelfer Report. Written by a Bush lap dog sent to find those elusive WMD, it is pretty comprehensive and conclusive. Saddam was a crippled dog, posturing to try to keep Iran at bay.

Further, the threat to our grandchildren from Iraq that was suggested would require an explanation of how Saddam could have assembled a force of WMD and means to deliver them to the United States that has not been either described or justified. Or mounted some other kind of as yet unspecified and unjustified threat. Without some backup it can't be viewed as being realistic by anyone willing to apply a minute or two of critical thinking to the claim.

It is clearly a fact that if the costs of the US remaining stuck in the quagmire that we made in Iraq are not inside the budget, which is already a deficit spending plan, then the cost of the President's Iraq Quagmire is not being paid for today. Or tomorrow. By your taxes or mine. Is being funded by debt. By the time this debt is paid, along with the interest, those of us alive and posting here today will be dead and gone. And especially if no one raises taxes like certain others are advocating out of one corner of their mouth while they advocate other policies that are essentially unfunded, like continuing this aggressive foreign policy.

So, the rules, while not documented and enforced by banning are simple. If one expects to be taken for other than a bobbing hard-on and expects one's statements to carry any weight, they have to be backed up by facts, logic or facts and logic. Something other than just speaking from one's offspring's heart, who isn't here to verify the word that were put in his or her mouth. Or merely chanting talking points from the GOP.

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #66 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 10:59 PM
~BANNED~
 
Date registered: Aug 2002
Posts: 41,649
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Quoted: 1763 Post(s)
The cost is too expensive. It is an arrogant indulgence to think otherwise. Justify all you want the ratio is off and there is no correcting it.
Shane is offline  
post #67 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 11:06 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
mcbear's Avatar
 
Date registered: Apr 2004
Vehicle: E500Es
Location: The BlueGrass State
Posts: 29,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multipurpose View Post
See post #44
Here again it's my opinion that is what we are establishing in both regions, but we first had to use the force of our military so we could get a foot hold to slowly incorporate the locals who also wish to expel bad guys.
the structure in Iraq [now or planned] is not even close to that described in 44.

You can't "get a foothold" by Invasion. That alienates much of the Arab and Muslim population. That kind of imperialistic thinking will just keep killing American troops for decades. When an entire culture [one with a Billion people] distrusts us, hate us and a fanatical subset of them want us dead, how does further pissing them off "get a foothold"?

Step back a step, why was there a need to "get a foothold" in a country that did not have AQ present? Iraq did not have AQ. AQ came when we created a vacuum there. What could we have done with that $Trillion to "get a foothold" in the minds of the Muslim community to gain the same objectives? What would that $Trillion have bought in defense for US and our Allies.

McBear,
Kentucky

Being smart is knowing the difference, in a sticky situation between a well delivered anecdote and a well delivered antidote - bear.
mcbear is offline  
post #68 of 76 (permalink) Old 07-31-2008, 11:07 PM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Location: USA
Posts: 9,257
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multipurpose View Post
I hope that in the near future our arms in Iraq & Astan can be put down and using VN as the example, we all saw what happened when we pulled out ASAP.
Far, far more death after we left.
This is another unsupported claim. What is meant by "far, far more death after we left" exactly?

Had we never entered the fray, the locals would have had their civil war and I very much doubt there is any evidence that under those circumstances there would have been more deaths than the combination of dead Vietnamese at the hands of the US and then by the overrunning of the South by the North. There is also no estimate of how many people, including Americans, would have died over what time period, had the war gone on until there was another outcome, which is also not described.

Fallacious, self serving (auto-fallacious?) argument that is not supported by logic, facts or logic and facts. Means "Bullshit!"

Jim
JimSmith is offline  
post #69 of 76 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 06:11 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 95 E300
Location: Inside my head
Posts: 36,850
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 392 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcbear View Post
No, I don't absolve anyone. But Congress got Cooked Intelligence so they, at least have half an excuse. Bushie and his buds have NO excuse. They knew from the get go.

And it is not a free reign with history. The majority opinion, worldwide is that this Administration falsified intel to start the war. You keep trying to avoid that conclusion.

As for the public, they had nothing to do with the planning of either the faking of intel or the piss poor planning of the war so they are not particularly germane to the "you guys" discussion.
We just went through the "faked" intelligence thing (for the 763rd time...) and you still weren't able to demonstrate that particular assumption was verifiable. So let's be kind and leave that line of argument aside or mark it, "unsubstantiated".

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thats what I intend to reverse.

~ Senator Barack H. Obama
Botnst is offline  
post #70 of 76 (permalink) Old 08-01-2008, 06:38 AM
BenzWorld Elite
 
elau's Avatar
 
Date registered: Oct 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 5,392
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Multipurpose View Post
I hope that in the near future our arms in Iraq & Astan can be put down and using VN as the example, we all saw what happened when we pulled out ASAP.
Far, far more death after we left.
Why do we care how many death after we leave? We never care how many deaths while we are there. Not to mention the killings will eventually stop, but that will never happens as long as the infidels are in their "holy land".

'95 R129
'04 G35.5 BS
'10 X204
elau is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > Off-Topic

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    What does Bush's Iraq war and Bush SR. have in common? Designo_E320 Off-Topic 3 07-05-2007 12:37 PM
    How will the country react to Bush's plan to escalate the Iraq War? FeelTheLove Off-Topic 12 01-02-2007 04:59 PM
    'President Bush's war, not America's war' firstmb Off-Topic 0 11-28-2005 11:28 PM
    Taking shrapnel for bush's war fjbertrand Off-Topic 4 06-15-2005 10:47 PM
    Anti-Iraq War Soldiers form PAC, begin airing new ad against the War FeelTheLove Off-Topic 8 10-15-2004 12:02 PM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may 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
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome