Thread: What I don't like about Bush.

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Well think Ashcroft.

Well think racist

Originally Posted by Leader

Well think racist

Indeed, Ashcroft is racist.

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Indeed, Ashcroft is racist.

Why do you say that?

-dale

Originally Posted by astralis

shek,

excellent choice, that book is truly informing as well as a good read. i think he does over-emphasize the positive, though. the book's focus was that, if only the US had given south vietnam continued material support then south vietnam would have survived. i believe it mentions how the ARVN in the final days, the soldiers actually had to BUY their own bullets and grenades? i remember asking lcol yu regarding this, and he mentioned that any country that couldn't produce small-arms ammo was in deep trouble. but nevertheless, an excellent read, because the US -did- beat the insurgency that was the vietcong there.

regarding iraqi police and army, though, i'm troubled by the infiltration of militia units into especially the former. from what i've read, the police down in southern iraq (especially basra) are riddled with plants from the various militia groups. (their complicity with some of the militia and insurgents could be seen in the whole undercover UK soldiers situation, right?)

any comments? i'd be interested in hearing.



interestingly enough, sadr rejected this "clemency" from zarqawi, saying that if zarqawi ever fell into his hands he'd literally rip him to pieces. sadr was hurt bad in 2004, but he's still a nuisance. i suppose the one good thing is that he's largely been co-opted into the political process, but that was primarily the result of sistani forcing his hand, rather than the pressures put on him by the US army. sadr had been crushed repeatedly by US forces, only to spring back up.

Sorely puts forth three major thoughts on why South Vietnam was unable to defend itself against the North's conventional invasion:

1. They hadn't weeded out enough of the incompetent generals that were in essence politically untouchable.

2. Failure of the US to adhere to its promises of continued military aid, air support, etc.

3. The appointment of Westmoreland, the only general of four under consideration who was a "search and destroy" body count guy vs. the "clear and hold" crowd that turned out to be very effective under Abrams from '68-'72.

Thanks for letting me know that Darth Sadr had rejected the "clemency." I had missed that. However, he doesn't have the widespread popular support that the papers will make out (he's definitely hated in Najaf and Karbala) and his kangaroo sharia courts have made him an extremist among the Iraqi Shia population. I wouldn't underestimate the beating that his Mahdi Army received, although Sistani's influence certainly has been a factor in keeping him on the outside.

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Indeed, Ashcroft is racist.

F*ck off, you racist pig

Originally Posted by dalem

Why do you say that?

-dale

Because he likes to make cute, moronic comments.

Originally Posted by Leader

F*ck off, you racist pig

Same to you **** sucker!

Originally Posted by Leader

Because he likes to make cute, moronic comments.

Yeah, because you'd make a nice subject for Shelby Lee Adams.

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Same to you **** sucker!

bye

Originally Posted by kmchugh

To Bluesman’s original question, I generally think that GWB has done a pretty good job, particularly where taking the fight to the terrorists is concerned. Many are upset at the recent news of the death of the 2000th soldier in the war on terror. I agree that this is a tragedy, but there is a “what if” scenario that never seems to get mentioned. Our troops have died fighting a very shadowy enemy in Iraq. Everything I have seen suggests to me that the “insurgents” we are fighting in Iraq are, for the most part, not Iraqis, but rather are Muslims from every other corner of the Islamic world. Frankly, we have to fight them, and the only wise course of action is to take the fight to them, rather than sit back and wait for them to come to us. Just for a moment, consider the number of casualties, both military and civilian, we would have endured by now had we not invaded Iraq. Rather than trying to fight us there, I suggest that many of these “insurgents” would have been in the US and Great Britain.

For all that, I don’t think the administration has been perfect at all. There have been missteps and mistakes, both in the war on terror, and on the domestic front. First, the war on terror:

I think GWB declared victory and brought home a majority of our troops from Iraq entirely too early. Politically at the time, it was a great move, but it has proven to be a tactical and strategic mistake. Had we left the invasion force intact and in place, the Iraqi border could have much more effectively been sealed off, preventing the entry of many of the insurgents we now have to fight. That would have allowed more time for the Iraqis themselves to form a new government without the distractions they currently face. It also would have allowed a great deal more time for the Iraqis to train their own forces to deal with the eventual arrival of the terrorists, whom I believe would have come eventually, no matter what.

Most disturbing to me is the almost Johnson-esque manner in which the war is often being run from the White House situation room. Vietnam taught us a valuable lesson about war. While war is simply the use of force to back up political will, once a president has made the decision to go to war, he/she must leave the actual nuts and bolts of the war to the professionals. The job of the president is to give the military a mission, then let the military figure out how best to accomplish that goal. Logistics, strategy, and tactics are best left to the professionals.

Kevin,
Other than one of the BDE's from 3ID, they weren't any units brought home prior to the 12 month mark that I am aware of. The invasion force stayed in Iraq, being extended from 6 months to 9 months to finally 12 months.

I would ask what decisions you feel are being made about Iraq from the White House? Outside of the decision to stop Fallujah I in its tracks last April, I cannot think of any examples where the White House has involved itself in tactical/operational decisions.

Thanks.

Shek

Originally Posted by Bulgaroctonus

I take most of my evidence from news articles, often featured in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post. These are all reputable and trustworthy news sources, therefore I don't think my facts are in error.

No, I don't see what you mean. I have not been using unusually biased or twisted news sources.

Bulgaroctonus,
You might want to rethink using the NYT as an unbiased source. To conclude otherwise after reading the following would be, well, illogical.

www.michellemalkin.com

CPL. JEFFREY B. STARR: WHAT THE NYTIMES LEFT OUT
By Michelle Malkin · October 28, 2005 10:49 AM

On Wednesday, the NYTimes published a 4,625-word opus on the "2,000 dead" milestone--a "grim mark," read the headline--on page A2. Among those profiled were Marines from the First Battalion of the Fifth Marine Regiment, including Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr. Here's an excerpt from the Times' passage about Cpl. Starr:

Another member of the 1/5, Cpl. Jeffrey B. Starr, rejected a $24,000 bonus to re-enlist. Corporal Starr believed strongly in the war, his father said, but was tired of the harsh life and nearness of death in Iraq. So he enrolled at Everett Community College near his parents' home in Snohomish, Wash., planning to study psychology after his enlistment ended in August.
But he died in a firefight in Ramadi on April 30 during his third tour in Iraq. He was 22.

Sifting through Corporal Starr's laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine's girlfriend. ''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

Last night, I received a letter from Corporal Starr's uncle, Timothy Lickness. He wanted you to know the rest of the story--and the parts of Corporal Starr's letter that the Times failed to include:

Yesterday's New York Times on-line edition carried the story of the 2000 Iraq US military death[s]. It grabbed my attention as the picture they used with the headline was that of my nephew, Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.
Unfortunately they did not tell Jeffrey's story. Jeffrey believed in what he was doing. He [was] willing put his life on the line for this cause. Just before he left for his third tour of duty in Iraq I asked him what he thought about going back the third time. He said: "If we (Americans) don't do this (free the Iraqi people from tyranny) who will? No one else can."

Several months after Jeffrey was killed his laptop computer was returned to his parents who found a letter in it that was addressed to his girlfriend and was intended to be found only if he did not return alive. It is a most poignant letter and filled with personal feelings he had for his girlfriend. But of importance to the rest of us was his expression of how he felt about putting his life at risk for this cause. He said it with grace and maturity.

He wrote: "Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

What Jeffrey said is important. Americans need to understand that most of those who are or have been there understand what's going on. It would honor Jeffrey's memory if you would publish the rest of his story.

Mr. Lickness also told me: "Even more than a Marine, Jeff was a man of God. At a recent memorial service at Camp Pendleton for the 16 Marines from his unit killed in Iraq we got to meet the men who were with him when he died. They told us of his bravery under fire, his leadership, his humor and his humanity. America lost the best it has, but the family knows he's with his Heavenly Father and we will see him again."

Now you know what the Times left out. Now you know the rest of Corporal Starr's story.

Indeed. The NYT has been wastepaper for a while now.

-dale

There is literally an example per day of their sloppiness, shoddiness, lack of standards, and straight-up BIAS in that birdcage liner.

There have been some minor, some major and some REALLY funny lapses of what a real paper would be like. But it is literally an item or more a day; they never disappoint.

To get back on topic, I reiterate that I don't like how the President has failed to answer his critics in the MS adequately.

Other then winning elections and carrying states and popular votes, I mean.

-dale