Forgot your password?
Or sign in with one of these services
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.
monsoon, May 31, 2004 in The Coffee House
The troop division responsible for capturing him should have kept the gun as a trophy at least.
This is an example of how he's without honour or courage. Especially to show it off like that.
And also another example of how little reflexive Bush-bashers need in the way of an excuse to, well, bash Bush.
Aside from Bush, this exemplifies the Army's new slogan: "An Army of One." Instead of getting people to think about military service as something for the greater good - something you give yourself up for to accomplish greater good - its been reduced to this.
Its not a trophy for America - its a trophy for Bush. Unfortunately it has done little to make America as a whole safer.
heckles, how would you know he hasen't made America safer overall ? Have we had a terrorist attack lately ? Have we not killed an awful lot of terrorists of late, using Iraq as flypaper ?
And though I'm not suggesting that correlation proves causation, according to the State Department, terrorist attacks worldwide are at there lowest level in 30 years.
Invading Iraq does not help a great deal against terrorism, which is a separate issue. That's why the Iraq situation hasn't helped our anti-terrorism efforts - yet Bush's administration confuses the line between a dictatorship and terrorism daily.
I'll overlook for the moment your hysterical caricature of the Bush admin and simply point out that the elimination of terrorists in their own backyard was always part-and-parcel of Bush's Iraq policy.
Are you suggesting that we've only been killing Iraqis in Iraq ? Indeed, we've killed many Al Queda IN IRAQ. And overall, though Al Queda is obviously operational (witness Madrid), nonetheless, their ranks have been greatly diminished.
Excerpts from the Iraqi independent weekly Al-Yawn Al-Aakher:
The myth of no Iraq-Al Queda connection has been thoroughly debunked, yet it is repeated as an article of faith by the left, as though it were true. Notice to the attestation to Al-Queda participating in battles against the U.S. in Iraq.
Indeed, network news attested to Al-Queda being killed in Iraq.
Question: Would you be displeased were you to learn that Bush had a hand in making America safer from terrorists ? Be honest here.
Al-Yawn Al-Aakher is a shill for Rush Limbaugh now ?
And your last paragraph causes me to wonder whether you and I can even carry on a productive conversation on the matter.
You might attend to the question I posed though.
I am happy that such a terrible man is gone from society but I don't feel that Bush approached Saddam's removal in the right way. I think that Bush should not be cocky and brash but I think he should have been more humble on replacing Saddam.
So Bush removed Hussein too arrogantly ? Should he have removed the mass murderer more nicely ?
On second thought, I just noticed from your sig that you're an Air America supporter, thus casting doubt on your assertions.
Hey, can't two play the "consider the source" game ?
And allright, the Iraqi source is named "Louie". Are you satisfied now ?
No, Bush should have been the same way towards Hussein. However, Bush should have probably done a better job with the politics and international feelings towards the war. We say it's not important, but when we develop hateful feelings in the interest of security, we must also understand that can hurt our security in other ways. And I'm a supporter of the war. I'm glad Hussein is gone, and I'd say we should do it again. But that doesn't mean I 100% agree with the timing or the image of the war.
BTW I don't understand the big deal with the trophy. Mines better than Bush's
don, I take your point. But France and Germany were not going to go with us at any rate. And this is partially due to their preoccupation with America projecting power in the world, irrespective of any threat that Hussein posed in the world.
And what is your trophy ? Do you have something of Osama's ? B)
Actually my piont is similar to Donaltopablo's view. I am just saying that Bush did not handle the situation before the war began very well. I support our president but I think he was wrong in alienating some countries.
Color me skeptical as to whether Bush could have wooed France, Germany and the like, or have avoided angering so many in the world who do not require an excuse to inveigh against America.
You are missing the entire point, Dale. There are better ways to prevent terrorism then to waste our resources going after Saddam the way we have.
First off - Saddam was not friends with terrorist groups by and large, mostly because of the control issue. Saddam was the dictator of an entire nation and in order to keep his power, he had to fight back terrorist-like organizations. That's why Saddam was not friends with the terrorist organizations by and large, he did some behind the scenes funding to certain groups - particularly Palestinian terrorists, but you are mistaking if you think Iraq was an Al Quaeda stronghold, it was not.
Again, the Iraq war has been a grave mismanagement of diplomacy and US resources that could have been used more intelligently to combat us against terrorism. Making Iraq a representative government is not easy, and it wastes resources we could have used to protect us against terrorism. Again - its two separate issues entirely.
Bush has confused terrorism and the Iraq situation, and you are buying the argument full line and sinker. So sad.
We could have been better off by bombing Karachi, Pakistan to kill more terrorists for crying out loud.
If you can't understand what has been said to this point, or you just disagree, think of it like this. If you have an ant problem, and have a good idea of how to get at the source - will you go destroy the line of ants in the middle of the yard between your house and the anthill - or will you go to the anthill and destroy it so that the source is eliminated.
With Iraq, its just a side issue. We destroyed one of the many lines of ants - in other words we've killed 10 ants when there are hundreds of thousands more at the real source of the problem.
Hopefully this gives you another perspective. Yes, Saddam was a bad person. Yes, the idea of a representative government in Iraq is a great concept. Yes, we've killed a few Al Quaeda in Iraq (again - 10 ants vs 100,000 at the source is my argument). But if you step back and quit stating the obvious - you come up with a more realistic viewpoint.
BTW When I refer to world opinion on the war in Iraq, France and Germany are the least of my concerns when it comes to hurting other nationals feelings.
However, had we resolved, or at least set on good foot the Isreal/Palestine conflict, we would have likely gotten much better support from the Arab/Muslim world in general to carry out our operations. The fact is, at the end of the day, Arabs generally do not go home worried or concerned with Saddam. Saddam doesn't even dominate their news. The Isreali/Palestine conflict does. You need to look no further than most interviews with not only arab leaders, but many Middle eastern citizens to realize that this should have been our top concern. To resolve this in a matter that was successful and allowed both sides to save some face. We have the power to do it, but strong lobby, historic alliances, and the lack of American political appeal means very few presidents, liberal or conservative are interested in tackling the issue.
Aside from world opinion or opinion on the plight of Iraqi citizens - what about the original goal? To secure the US against terrorism?
I just don't see how the war /w Iraq has helped us - I see it as a way that we've wasted tons of resources we could have used better. And by resources, I mean all kinds: monetary, diplomatic, militarily, etc.
How anyone can legitimately see Iraq as being the central focal point on protecting us against terrorism is beyond me. I don't get it. Not one single solid argument has been made that supports Iraq being the holy grail of combating terrorism.
Here is how my mind has been thinking throughout this entire war: we know we have limited resources, we know we have a huge problem. The goal is to use our limited resources as intelligently as possible to secure the United States against terrorism and keep us safe. The plight of the Iraqi people comes after that. World opinion comes after that. But to take the resources we do have and destroy them for no real reason - that is just stupid. I've seen too much of that under Bush, unfortunately.
No registered users viewing this page.