Thread: Why President Bush should be Re-elected

Well, James Jerome, you seem to have such a large defense system there, I do not know where to penetrate first. First of all, it is encouraging to know the virility of your manhood, and you do not wear panties. The term "getting ones panties in a wad," is only an old southern expression used in calming one who is in over-reacting mode, which is usual with incoming newbies here, from the initial "shock and awe" of it all.

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

("fact tht the war in Iraq was ill-timed." Where is this a proven "fact." Also, "more immediate concerns?" Outsiders have no idea what threats are more immediate.)

Many Americans have voiced their concerns about beginning another war before stabilizing Afghanistan. Fonnicker just wants it acknowledged, and not brushed aside. Your "proof" can be found in the pudding... how it tastes to you is strictly your own personal opinion.

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

(the whole world works on strategy. Saddam, his weapons, his agression, his defiance, terrorists all play a part in it, but it is also about security now, and in the future, and what is morally right to protect the innocent victims of a cruel dictator.

What does that have to do with the timing which Fonnicker still seeks support?

Ray's comment - "However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings? Get them first."

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

It is comments like these that lead novice readers to believe these statements are facts and based on some insight to military intelligence. Some people seem to be asserting their "opinions" as though they actually do have acess to secret military documents, or that they can determine which enemy is more of a threat, and which timing would be better. This is simply ridiculous!

There has been much documentary evidence released regarding the Saudis terrorism involvement, and some people still wonder why the Saudis have not been held publically accountable to any of it. With that in mind, why is Ray's comment so ridiculous?

James, there was a link posted here before the election of an international poll taken. I believe the poll reflected Kerry 70% to Bush 30%, give or take a little. The national 48.5% of Kerry's votes, do represent millions of Americans, were not all because they voted on Kerry's issues, but because they did not like Bush for some reason or the other.

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

I do not care to address the labels of "right - conservative" vs. "left - liberal."

I really do not know how to tell you to deal with that, except file a formal complaint with the Board Administrator. This board is as divided as the day at election time.

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

I think that some people here need to take a closer look at the difference between the definition of what is a "right" as opposed to what is a "privilage." Rights are those freedoms that rational people believe exist whether men, and laws, acknowledge them or not. I know that I have a right to live simply because no one can prove that they gave me this life, thus have the just authority to take it from me without due process.

Being a woman, I defend Roe v. Wade for the simple fact that I should be able to make choices about my body in life, just as I choose to be an organ donor after my death.

Originally Posted by James_Jerome

Learn some legal definitions, and court history before you use this case in support of your argument for abortion.

You do not have to patronize me regarding State and Federal Laws, since I was a practicing para-legal for 15 years defending the rights of the less fortunate. I ceased my dances in the courtrooms when Ashcroft began shredding our Constitution to fit his circumstances at the time.

Originally Posted by Julie

Many Americans have voiced their concerns about beginning another war before stabilizing Afghanistan. Fonnicker just wants it acknowledged, and not brushed aside. Your "proof" can be found in the pudding... how it tastes to you is strictly your own personal opinion.

Most of the people on this board have voiced that same opinion. It is an opinion though, his may differ.

Originally Posted by Julie

There has been much documentary evidence released regarding the Saudis terrorism involvement, and some people still wonder why the Saudis have not been held publically accountable to any of it. With that in mind, why is Ray's comment so ridiculous?

Because nobody would have supported an invasion of SA. If one cannot support the removal of Saddam there is no way one could support regime change in Saudi. Political pressure from the west, as well as terrorists atacking Saudis, seems to be turning them without an invasion. So why go after them militarily?

Originally Posted by Confed999

Most of the people on this board have voiced that same opinion. It is an opinion though, his may differ.

That is right, which does not make the ones that differ "armchair generals."

Originally Posted by Confed999

Because nobody would have supported an invasion of SA. If one cannot support the removal of Saddam there is no way one could support regime change in Saudi. Political pressure from the west, as well as terrorists atacking Saudis, seems to be turning them without an invasion. So why go after them militarily?

I don't recall saying invade Saudi. I said holding them publically accountable, i.e. denouncing the acts of these clerics, and publically announcing the Saudis be accountable for the teaching and breeding of these fundamentalists within their country.

Originally Posted by Julie

That is right, which does not make the ones that differ "armchair generals."

Most of us are just "armchair generals". Ray and Officer of Engineers, I'm sure there are others as well, are exceptions because of their military knowledge and experience.

Originally Posted by Julie

denouncing the acts of these clerics

They can do that, it's not the Saudi government saying it.

Originally Posted by Julie

and publically announcing the Saudis be accountable for the teaching and breeding of these fundamentalists within their country.

But that's what they're probably using for some political pressure. I agree with you, they should be held accountable. It would still likely lead to an invasion, or worse, after years of terrorist building economic sanctions. The Saudis would balk at any "judgement" against them, and the UN would be unable to respond because the oil is needed by too many veto votes.
(A little armchair generaling here but, I don't think we'll see another ME invasion, bombardments and incursions, but no more invasions.)

Here's a list of some of George W. Bush Jr.'s achievments:

1. He's managed to turn a record surplus into a record deficit, all the while claiming that there was a recession, which really only seems to exist in folklore, and blaiming oil price rises, all the while supporing Isreal's invasions of Palestine and starting another war in the Middle East that is nowhere near over.

2. He's managed to alienate most of the world, which was more then willing to help America, by effectively saying "Screw You" whenever they don't immediatley fall in line.

3. He's taken America to war in Iraq on the basis of disarming a dictatorship, while leaving North Korea and Pakistan alone. He also said he was making sure terrorists wouldn't get their hands on new weapons, except that the collapse of the Iraqi government lead to hundreds of tons of munitions going missing.

4. He's taken America to war on the basis of supporting democracy in the Middle East, while he continued to sell new weapons and provide aid to the Saudi Royal family, who just happen to be an absolutist dictatorship with links to terrorists.

5. He sent US troops to war in a country they didn't understand, full of people they didn't understand, without trying to prevent them from doing things like hoisting the American flag over everything, torturing prisoners or enacting draconian punishments against looters (Like running their cars over with tanks because they stole $100 worth of building materials.)

6. He is clearly unwilling to or unable to understand that it is impossible to beat an insurgency, particularly an ethnic/religiously based insurgency by killing people, as that only inflames the hatreds their community holds for you. Furthermore, his attempts to fight the war on the cheap have left the US Army in Iraq badly short of soldiers and of things like body armour. This has left the US military stretched so thin that they now have to ask for help from the British, whose "low-key" approach to the occupation has been infinitely more successful, and to rely on half-trained Iraqi soldiers that often hate the Americans anyway.

7. He hasn't caught Osama Bin Laden, nor has he been prepared to finish the job in Afghanistan, nor has he been prepared to deploy anywhere near enough soldiers to that country either.

8. Under his stewardship the US government has opted to restrict the rights of certain groups of it's citizens, purley on the basis of their private lives.

Yeah, he's been a great President.

(the whole world works on strategy. Saddam, his weapons, his agression, his defiance, terrorists all play a part in it, but it is also about security now, and in the future, and what is morally right to protect the innocent victims of a cruel dictator).

or Ray's comment:


Quote:
However, there be bigger blasted tyrants who require more attention than than fool Saddam. Remember the swinish Saudi Kings?

Get them first.


It is comments like these that lead novice readers to believe these statements are facts and based on some insight to military intelligence. Some people seem to be asserting their "opinions" as though they actually do have acess to secret military documents, or that they can determine which enemy is more of a threat, and which timing would be better. This is simply ridiculous!

As Confed has drawn the attention, indeed I am a military officer.

I am a flag rank officer with four wars under the belt! And also have a long experience in anti terrorist operations which has been hassling India for a very long time.

I understand strategy and warfare since that has been my bread and butter. Therefore, if I sometimes appear to be a little terse on military issues, I would not be that ridiculous as you are trying to make me out to be. In my time, I too had access to what you call secret documents.

One of the Principles of War is 'Selection and Maintenance of Aim'. Another is 'Concentration of Force'.

The US aim was Osama and the Taliban. Very correctly, the US attacked Osama in Afghanistan which was being controlled by the Taliban.

To change tack even before Osama and the Taliban could be defeated in details, the aim shifted to Iraq. Militarily, that means deviating from the Principle of War - Slection and maintenance of Aim'.

Next is concentration of Force. By changing tack and going to Iraq while Afghanistan had not been brought to a logical close, the force has been dissipated. Thus, there is the helplessness that is being observed in Iraq as also in Afghanistan.

Even military history bears this out. Please read Operation Barbarossa where Hitler changed tack and the consequences thereafter.

Now why Saudi Arabia. It is the breeding ground of the Wahabis. If the political aim was to rid the world of Osama and the Taliban, then having first taken on the Osama and the Taliban and eliminating them completely (which the US could since they are not accountable to anyone, like it or not), then the spawning area should have been adddressed, namely Saudi Arabia.

Saddam Hussein had been already made impotent militarily and economically. He was lesser of the evil than Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran. Saddam could have been addressed later.

Yet a word of caution. Having combatted Islamic terrorism for a very long time, it is very difficult to fight Islamic terrorism since they are enthused about living an after life in Paradise, damning their present life (which possibly to most of them is a bit of a hard grind to bear anyway) and maybe they read Wordsworth - My heart leaps up when I behold a Rainbow in the sky!

Interestingly, they also do not like negotiations. The lure of Paradise after death is too strong in them.

True that. Another argument against the administration's handling of the war on terrorism is the very fact that they call it a war. Aside from assisinating their leaders and taking out their camps, it is impossible to really fight terrorists, as they have no set base, no permanent leadership. Terrorism is like crime, it springs up everywhere from time to time, amongst all kinds of people, who want to acheive all kinds of aims. This isn't a comic book. There isn't some guy who all terrorists answer to, and once he is dead they will all surrender or something. There can never be a military victory over terrorism, rather there can only be a series of perpetual police actions to prevent any one group of them becoming too strong.
If you want to stop Islamic terrorism, the only way is to attack the source of their recruits and support: Poverty and ingorance in muslim countries.

Ray

"it is very difficult to fight Islamic terrorism since they are enthused about living an after life in Paradise, damning their present life (which possibly to most of them is a bit of a hard grind to bear anyway)"


But this is not the entirety of the sword bearers in the name of radical Islamism. These men and women, -- the suicide types are extra-ordinary, not the norm-- are to a considerable degree, rational, at least in a functional sense. Lets not make them ten feet tall.

There is a difference between India and Israel and the West, in India, the consencus as to who the enemy was, what kind of threat it represents has been answered in a very different way than in Israel or the US - this question of public agreement about the nature of the enemy, the political will to prevail and the financial and military capablity to do so, is a very diferent calculation in India.

If you will allow me, what all these who have the radical islamist enemy in common, have failed to do, is to make the case that it is not they but the Islamist who is the real enemyh of Muslims and their aspirations to be a part of the international order.

Can Islamist be defeated? Ask the taliban.