You had to say it. Auto posting enabled.
Posted on 09/03/2006 10:03:43 AM PDT by meandog
GUADALAJARA--I'm wondering. Help me wonder. Either Georgie Bush is the minor, depressing, witless ferret I think he is, or I am. It has to be one or the other. If things don't start looking up pretty soon internationally, I'm going to be pretty sure which.
As best as I can tell, what the Maximum Cipher lacks, among an inexhaustible list of other things, is a hop toad's understanding of how people work. Here we have the explanation of just about everything he does. He's dealing with a world full of people, but has no idea what people are. He probably couldn't recognize one. So he doesn't take their predictable behavior into account.
Think about it. When he went braying into Iraq, he thought people would roll over, throw flowers, and have a democratic revolution. This would start a domino effect that would make all the other Muslim countries want to be democracies, too. They would climb over each other to be democracies. They would love us because democracies love each other. He just knew it.
This makes perfect sense if you have no flipping idea how human beings work.
(Excerpt) Read more at fredericksburg.com ...
They would be more than happy if we stayed around, and left some bases there to keep them safe from the Turks and Iranians. They'd also be happy if we just left entirely. They'd be our friends for centuries simply because we killed Saddam and left them the power to create a Kurdish state.
Our invasion of Iraq was not for altruistic purposes alone.
You are correct.
The invasion was for many reasons not the least of which was the confluence of Islamic fascist nuts and Husseins propensity for WMD.
Oh, yeah? How's that working out for us? Is the region safe from WMDs and Islamofasicts yet?
Aside from that you've done a miserable job of rehabilitating Reeds assinine claim that history teaches us that killing and occupying our enemies can not have a positive outcome
That's not his claim, though. His claim is that people don't like being occupied, not that it doesn't have a positive outcome. You could say the same thing about colonialism, for that matter. Sure, it can have a positive outcome, but the locals may not like it at the time.
In Germany and Japan, we didn't care what they felt about being occupied, and had the strength to impose our will, so it worked. In Iraq, we do care what they think, and our strength is spread thinly. These are all real factors that need to be considered. Dismissing them as irrelevant because we succeeded under different circumstances is bound to fail.
It wasn't my assertation. The 9/11 / Pearl Harbor comparison was made earlier.
That's a very clear, concise and correct answer.
Response B, 2001. Work with various willing countries and their willing people in the Middle East and around the world to defeat the terrorists in their own country. Remove dictators and replace with democracy any terrorist supporting country that refuses to cooperate ASAP. See Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for positive results with Syria, Iran and (Lebanon) to follow.
That isn't.
Let's dissect this, for the sake of clarity. When you can't speak plainly about something, like WWII, there's usually a reason.
Work with various willing countries and their willing people in the Middle East and around the world to defeat the terrorists in their own country.
Technically true, but most of the terrorists are from countries that help us with one hand, and stuff money into terrorist coffers in the other. These "willing countries" like removing terrorist threats to their own regime, though.
Often by exporting them.
Remove dictators and replace with democracy any terrorist supporting country that refuses to cooperate ASAP.
How soon is ASAP? Iran, Syria and Pakistan called, and they wanted to know.
See Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for positive results with Syria, Iran and (Lebanon) to follow.
Iraq?
Afghanistan is fast becoming the Columbia of Central Asia. The Taliban is now supervising and exporting heroin, and takes in more money than the Afghan central government.
Pakistan is one heartbeat away from becoming a radical Islamist state with tested nuclear weapons and missiles. They still support terrorism against India as a matter of state policy.
Saudi Arabia is about 50 heartbeats away from going from covert to overt Islamofascist, and their emirs bankroll every jihad, intifada and uprising there is.
Lebanon made great progress, but is now falling under the sway of Syria and Iran, who are every inch as terrorist today as they were in 2001.
Libya ditched their nuclear program, though, and that is good.
Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. Once again, you haven't posted squat to back up your assertions. All you can do is blow smoke out your arse. So go pound sand. There was NO public political opposition to FDR's war efforts that even begins to compare with what Bush has faced from the Dems.
Blitzkrieg did not exist until the Nazis invented it. We had to adapt to their tactics and defeat them with the weakness of such. The same holds with the Islamists. And if anything, the Islamists wish to eliminate us, more than the Nazis did prior to Pearl Harbor.
9/11, on the other hand, killed an similar number of people, but it was launched by 5,000 cave dwellers from a somewhat obscure terrorist group hiding in a country 96% of Americans couldn't find on a map.
And Hitler took over the Saar with a runt army. Most Americans never heard of the Saar at the time, either. I guess that means such wasn't a big deal after all.
You had to say it. Auto posting enabled.
That's because the Nazis were a greater, more organized, and more lethal military threat than the Islamofascists.
Naturally, Pearl Harbor is going to create a more unified response than 9/11. We covered that earlier. The public wouldn't stand for it in 1942 because the Axis war machine was tearing the world apart at the seams, and people felt genuinely threatened. The Islamofascists today are a danger, but they're not Axis-level danger. You may not agree, but the average American, who by proxy is supported by the average congressman, feels that way.
Does anybody here think we will have to confront Iran directly
If so --through bombing alone or will we need boots on the ground
If we need boots what will we use as a base ( jumping off point )
Are you high? Next you will be voting for Hillary. And please give us the courtesy of a barf alert the next time you go slumming for tripe written by unkown liberal writer wannabes who publish in unknown non-professional journals and don't even live in this country.
At that point, he wasn't.
If 9/11 came after the Middle East became nuclearized, then the threat would have been taken much more directly. Espeically if WMD were used. Possibly we would have had a national mobilization, a draft, and other measures. People's reactions are based off of the level of threat at the time, and under those situations, you wouldn't see the public stand for acts of disloyalty, like they do now. The situation dictates the response.
If Pearl Harbor happened in 1925, we would have sailed over to Japan, flattened it, and sailed home. Maybe some debate over whether or not it was rogue elements of the Japanese military, but weren't the people our friends, and shouldn't we all just get along? There certainly would have been no internment camps. There just wasn't the level of threat present to back it up.
The two events are significant for us, and pushed us into new eras, but they were very different situations. The analogy is bound to fail.
If you have a keen desire to learn the variants of political opposition the biographies mentioned and the historical scholarship of that period are readily available. If you're looking for tutor I'm not interested.
Please excuse me while I walk down to the beach to pound the sand you requested.
The author is a kook and irreleveant.
He is misunderestimating and just spewing DNC talking points. He rails agains cowboy diplomacy, and rails against GWBush as a boyscout.
Seems mr. expatriate in mexico has ostrich head syndrome compounded by BDS.
This is his conclusion:
Freed Reed = Kinky Freedman = Zero.
How soon is ASAP? Iran, Syria and Pakistan called, and they wanted to know.
The WOT is not over yet. As I said Iran and Syria should be dealt with ASAP. If you think that it was possible sooner, so be it. I don't.
See Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for positive results with Syria, Iran and (Lebanon) to follow. Iraq?
Iraq.
Afghanistan is fast becoming the Columbia of Central Asia. The Taliban is now supervising and exporting heroin, and takes in more money than the Afghan central government.
To say that Afghanistan is fast becoming another Colombia is to ignore that they have been that way for a long time. BTW, in Afghanistan, we have made great progress against the Taliban.
Pakistan is one heartbeat away from becoming a radical Islamist state with tested nuclear weapons and missiles. They still support terrorism against India as a matter of state policy.
Pakistan was a dangerous country before 9/11. Since then, the Pakistanis has sucessfully gone after Al Qaeda terrorists in their own country and they have successfully worked with us to dismantle the global Khan nuclear network. You are correct that they have been weak fighting against Taliban both on the Afghanistan front and on the Northern front in Kashmir, up to this point.
Saudi Arabia is about 50 heartbeats away from going from covert to overt Islamofascist, and their emirs bankroll every jihad, intifada and uprising there is.
As I said before, Saudi Arabia has been very helpful in the fight against Al Qaeda and helping us with the occupation of Iraq. But when it comes to Hamas and Hezzbollah they are still off.
Lebanon made great progress, but is now falling under the sway of Syria and Iran, who are every inch as terrorist today as they were in 2001.
Yes, Lebanon has made great progress but to say that they are now falling under the sway of Iran and Syria is to indicate that you don't realize how much more under control they were before.
The bottom line is it appears you want the WOT to have been finished yesterday. The reality is, it will take more time.
Not according to what I've read.
As for having "no flipping idea how human beings work" --how many Iraqi's risked death to participate in the elections compared to those wreaking havoc in an attempt to return to the ancien regime, where they were free to loot the country.
It's safe to say a huge majority of Iraqis prefer representative government to a kleptocracy.
LOL. I see you've found a new friend. :=}
It's amazing how many people on this thread seem to forget that.
A huge majority of Iraqis have participated in a representative government. The MSM only shows the minority opposition. Some Freepers believe the MSM.
This is what you said and it was nonsense. You're claim is that the Kurds don't see us as an improvement on the Baathist regime. It is utter and complete garbage which is why I said "tell it to the Kurds".
Oh, yeah? How's that working out for us?
Pretty damn well I'd say. Abu Abbas? DEAD. Abu Nidal? DEAD. Zarqawi? DEAD. Usay? DEAD. Qusay? DEAD. The old man? A laughing stock. Terrorist training bases? DEAD. Bounty paid to islamo fascists for the heads of Americans and Jews by the Iraq government? DEAD. Not to mention lots and lost of deadenders who are attracted to Iraq and sent to their maker by our brothers in the Army and Marine Corps.
Is the region safe from WMDs and Islamofasicts yet?
LOL, the world isn't a safe place. The world in our lifetime will never be a safe place. The object is to mitigate the danger well away from Americas shores.
That's not his claim, though.
Did you type that with a straight face???????
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.