Posted on 09/03/2006 10:03:43 AM PDT by meandog
BZZT! War is war. You have to have a will to win one. FDR could NEVER have won WWII if his republican opponents had sandbagged him for every thing he did.
If it was a Dim (Gore or Kerry) in office and running the GWOT the same way as Bush, do you REALLY believe that we, on FR, would not be howling to the rooftops?
First of all, I have expressed issues with the Bush Admin's conduct of this war. I think Rummy's vision for a small, lean military is wrong. I think Bush needed to make this about Islamists long ago.
However, he is still willing to treat this as a war. Gore and Kerry would not be. So the question begs relevance, instead of an answer. The only Dems IMO would would be willing to fight a meaningful war have been driven out of the party.
"This must be maureen dowd day".....AND....This is the "maureen dowd boy" writing ....
I can't image Gore or Kerry running a WOT... Evidently you can. Who would you call out as your preferred Machiavellian leader? (BTW Reagan's gone now)
I hate to tell you this, but we did a pretty damn good job annihilating them in the process. Just ask the 100,000 who got barbequed in the Tokyo firebombing.
I think the real problem nowadays is with the left and their return to the Chamberlain-ian notion that delayed war is somehow peace. In fact, they are worse than Chamberlain. Chamberlain sought peace in his time. Our Dems see the US as evil and seek it to be cut down several notches.
Sounds just like a guy in the office who never finds anything anybody does even marginally useful. He himself is beyond such criticism since he never does anything at all.
Sailed? It's burning in the harbor, blocking our port. We're not debating a point of historical interest in the Peloponesian wars, here.
We got Saddam, we got the WMDs, such as they were, we got what we went into Iraq for. Our military is agile and fast, and was able to shatter the old Iraqi military and government in a few weeks. We're all over that, and we can do it pretty cleanly, too.
That's warfighting, not occupation. Forcing a new form of government on people that don't want it isn't a task for people not willing to get their hands dirty. The Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam, but that doesn't mean they still want us there.
Gawd, please try to keep up. The Saudis use their oil production as a protection racket. They know they could send the global economy into a tailspin by turning off the pumps. And our leaders know it as well. They simply let it be subtly known that they would use oil as a response to excessive political or military threats, and we can't threaten them.
And I guess you missed the history of the oil embargo in the 1970s as proof they are willing to do such a tactic.
You forgot Nepal.
The answer to that question is easy but lengthy.
Thanks for posting the pic.
This guy is a major (MAJOR!!) lunatic who has or has had in the past super self gratifying web site wherein he expounds endlessly on his superlativeness....
He looks upon himself as this century's only remaining Beatnik...Kerouac reborn and on better drugs.
The incidental fact that he occasionally touches upon things others might agree with provides him his only cover and you can bet that the "Free Lance Star" didn't pay for the piece.
What is unreasonable about that?
What part of this don't you understand?
"How"
If you have an answer, please forward it to Headquarters, MNF-I Baghdad, CENTCOM, or the U.S. Department of Defense.
It's a nice sounding vision, but there was no plan for it. The CPA totally botched the job, and the military had a lot of conflicting (or non-existant) orders on what it was supposed to be doing.
Where did I say it was unreasonable? To the Saudis, it is quite sane.
I was simply commenting that, if we are ever going to be able to apply serious political military or political pressure on them, we have to dilute their impact on world oil markets. And if we restore Iraq as a major producer, that is a step in that direction.
Of course, it would help even more if we developed ANWR and the eastern Gulf, and got serious about coal gasification.
This Reed's biography, obviously written by him, qualifies him as a full-blown burned-out jerk and waste of human skin.
FRied Red
BumP
Me: We threatened military action against the Saudis? BTW, the Saudis helped us tremendously when we entered Iraq. The Saudis have also effectively removed the presence of Al Qaeda from their country. So when did we threaten military action against the Saudis and when did they threaten to sabotage their own oil wells??I don't think that happened.
LOL! Your story keeps changing. First you said that they planned to sabatoge their oil wells a couple of years ago. Then you changed your story and point to the Arab Oil Embargo 33 years ago.
As I said, your above claim didn't happen.
It is the muslims who don't understand people. An article just like this could be written but replace the name of Bush with muslim and then they become the clueless ones, the ones who don't understand people, who don't know people. It galls us to be bombed and then told to convert.
Shhhh, quiet, your ignorance of WW II political and military history is showing.
This is the quote of the day, so far as I'm concerned.
The two are not mutually exclusive, dude. You keep shifting the points of debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.