Has anybody noticed how most of the 9 dwarves (& billary) are now saying the war was good but we are now failing in restructuring, stabilizing, rebuilding the peace, etc.? Aren't these the same people who first voted for the war, then backtracked and said they were against it when it looked like they could gain something and now say they support the war but disagree with how Bush is doing the aftermath? I know they're posturing for an election but can't they make up their minds and STICK with one position on anything?
Does anybody on here actually believe rebuilding an entire society is easier than conquering a 3rd rate army in a war? Does anybody on here seriously think we can just set up their country in 6 months or less, walk away and not have chaos and internecine warfare in Iraq?
I know Hip and a few others will have lots of opinmions on this. Post away fellas.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
Typical of the Democrats to say one thing and do another. Consider this: For eight years, our military and intelligence agencies were picked apart piece by piece because "we weren't anybody's enemy anymore" and "the world was a safe place." Bill Clinton insisted that many Arab prisoners in Israel be let go, including Mohhamed Atta, the lead hijacker on 9/11. It has taken three years to get our military back and running well, and there is still work to be done, on both the military and the intelligence agencies. Now, if it takes that long to improve our own instruments, encompassing a few million people, how are we supposed to help get a nation of 24 million people, in a volatile area, where nobody knows friend from foe, that wasn't at all stable before, economic or otherwise, up and running in six months? To the Democrats I say, do the country a favor and let the realistic, smart, relentless, and hopeful party lead Iraq to freedom. You've done your parts to degrade freedom with socialist schemes already. I think that there is alot of good that can come from doing things right in Iraq. Let's face it; we are an energy based society. If we are allies with a new Iraq, not only will they make huge profits from us buying energy, but we will also be able to buy it cheaper than we would from hostile countries. Energy is freedom, every time we turn on our cars, computers, cell phones, anything, we are using energy. The cheaper we can get it, the more freedom we will have to be Americans, and participate in our everyday activities. There is no fault in this; it's how every country would like to be. This is another reason that the Republicans are the party of freedom, and the Democrats are the party of big government schemes.
Regardless of what anyone thinks including the parade of clowns (the 9 no glue Dems), We are now there for as long as it takes to establish a stabil government. I don't consider this Nation Building. That Government in no place in a civilized world. Even the wennie liberals have to admit that.
I always thought it was dwarves for the plural spelling Charlie. I just checked Webster's and find either spelling is correct. So to answer your first question, yes, I mean dwarfs as well as dwarves.
As for nation building, I guess that depends on how you define it and what you believe GW meant when making that comment. I think all of us were a little surprised at how badly deteriorated Iraq's infrastructure was once we defeated saddam's armies. If you insist, I guess we could just throw up our hands and pull out of Iraq "as is."
Since we haven't finished helping the Iraqis reestablish a stable government, water, power and many other parts of their infrastructure, I would suspect there would be quite a mess at first. Because terrorists and other goons are running around killing people (including Iraqi policemen), I would expect many of these infrastructure projects would quickly be destroyed in the name of eliminating anything even remotely connected with the great satan America.
When I think of nation-building, I somehow think of creating nations that previously did not exist. I think of meddling with national boundaries to achieve some type of unnatural and unhistorical national boundaries in the quest for creating a new nation, etc. I think of doing these things just because we can and without good reasons or intentions. I think of some of our missions in the Balkans where we didn't seem to accomplish much or have a lot of direction or success.
Although I wish we were already out of Iraq, I also realize that pulling out now would be reliving the mistake that America has so often made when "assisting" peoples of other countries. We talk the talk then duck out when walking the walk becomes difficult. I think this job of eliminating the terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq has become larger than anybody (the President, Congress, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives or liberals) ever suspected. I also think the subject is being used by politicians for political gain in the upcoming elections and that they are not really interested in doing what's right.
I realize that Bush benefits from Afghanistan and Iraq if he handles them well. I also recognize that he pays a severe penalty in the polls and upcoming election if he handles them poorly. Most importantly of all, I believe (and think I know) that Bush has a responsibility as the President of our country to fulfill both of these missions and to protect and safeguard Americans from further terrorist attacks.
Although some will argue that there must be a set in stone direct link to terrorists for Bush to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq, I would argue that he has substantially reduced those terrorists' threats to Americans and for darn sure we haven't had a repeat of 9/11.
Something else that I find a little bit disingenuous is the idea that once Bush says something, he is irrevocably bound to that idea or statement, no matter what new information or circumstances arise. While it would be foolish or downright disastrous to continue with a plan once new information dictates a change, changing a plan to increase its' chances of success due to new information is prudent and wise.
It's nice to see somebody stand for something and actually stand up to the swirling currents of public opinion and criticism but I also believe it is wise to consider altering a plan or decision when new information indicates it would be prudent to do so. Although you alluded to this point Charlie, the comments in this paragraph are not directed at you but to several vocal critics who seem to be nitpicking at any little thing they think they have "discovered." Some of these people give the appearance of preferring failure over success simply because it would benefit them in an election and be to Bush's detriment. I don't see any honor in such a position and nothing I can respect.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
CalHunter...I have come to the conclusion that either a person "gets it" or they do not.
It is astounding that something as important as the world wide war on terrorism can be drawn here in the United States upon party lines.
I have never seen, at least in my lifetime,,,one party,(democrats) so afraid that the other party might succed (republicans) that they were willing to openly sabotage the final outcome.
Sure, there are many examples of domestic issues where one party tries, and succedes in downing an ideal of the other party.
But not on an issue with world wide ramifications such as the global war on terror.
At the end of world war one...The United States emerged as a world power. We did'nt really want that title...But we had it whether we wanted it or not.
As a result, many countries asked for...but did not receive our assistance in the early days of world war two. We had a congress that was devided as to our roll in that conflict also. Then we were sucker punched in Pearl Harbor.
The United States emerged from that conflict as a world power then also.
For fifty years, America showed up as the good guy in most of the worlds conflicts...We did'nt really want to be there, but we were because we ARE the good guys.
We would fight the fights, not because we wanted to, but because they needed fighting.
Now here we are.
We are the greatest Country on the planet.
We have the greatest and mightiest fighting force on the planet.
We have the best and most brilliant minds on the planet as our citezens.
But as a result of our great and free society...We have some of the most stupid, dependant, and short sighted people on our planet as citezens also.
Whether we want to admit it or not...The United States of America is the Greatest and most powerfull nation on the planet.
There are folks who do not like us...They conspire to see our downfall.
They will not stop, and they will not be appeased. they will take whatever avenues they can to do us harm. They can not be negotiated with, and they will never change.
There is only one answer.
The bad guys must be killed before they can kill us.
The war on terrorism has taken a much too "acedemic" turn.
For those who have not been paying attention...This IS world war three.
It's the good guys against the bad guys.
We all know who the bad guys are. They are the guys who do real bad things to otherwise good people. The difference here is; The bad guys are MIXED in with the good people. So, as a result, the elimination of the bad guys must be approached with a different method.
And that is where the democrats are failing so miserably...The ability to see that not only is this a different kind of war and a different kind of enemy...It must be fought differently also.
There are two types of people in this country, and for the most part, the world.
Grownups and children- not in a chronological form either.
Children- like to play, like to whine when they don't get their way, base opinions on whims instead of reason, expect adults to fix problems that arise, spend their time goofing off and making fun of the adults, expect that someone else will take care of them.
Adults- Go to work, carry the weight of supporting the children in every aspect of society, fix the challenging problems of the world even if they are difficult, dangerous, or dirty, make decisions based on facts, history, and knowledge of human behavior, receive little or no praise at the end of the day.
The reason I use the words 'children' and 'adults' is that some people will always be children though many through life experiences will mature to adults, though few if any regress to the children's way of thinking.
Once again, this has nothing to do with chronological age, but more to do with maturity. Some 12 year olds 'get it' and are able to reason and understand the concepts of self suffiency, self defense, and self motivation, while large numbers of 20-70 year olds can not.
__________________
Obamanfreude - 1. taking pleasure from the misfortunes of an Obama supporter as he or she is adversely affected by the policies of their Dear Leader.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Iraq War & the 9 Dwarves
I may not be old enough to remember many elections ,(im only 35) but it seems
to me that this up coming election is the worst of all. More mud slinging
then I ever remember. Party goals above common sense. No real stance on
the part of the Dems. A lot of bitchen and moaning with no answer to the
questions. [:@]
Please someone tell me this isn"™t new.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
Iraq War & the 9 Dwarves
