Bush is a hero

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178119 Jun 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>Good, say whatever you want. My point is you do view many on the right as racist. I'm pretty sure some time back you also referred many of us here as upset with blacky or some such crap. Before Obama was elected for the first time in my voting life (been voting since 92) I was called a bigot also had my car keyed up. Strange nothing that happened before. I'd go out on a limb and say whoever meased up my car isn't a fan of other povs but is strongly on the left.
Now, see, I could have sworn that the car keying was over a Bush sticker.

Whatever.

I may have said something about there being 'many' on the right who are racist. What I've NEVER said or implied is that those people and their views have anything to do with YOU or most of the posters in this thread with whom I disagree.

We've done this before, Chris, but you seem to think left and right are something specific. I don't. I think left and right are ranges. On both those ranges, when you get out to the fringe you run into some mean, nasty ugly people.

To put it another way - unlike you, I don't trot into the thread ever day or so parroting the latest outrage du jour touted by a talking head committed by some obscure figure in (often barely) the public eye with the implication that you 'own' the acts or views of that person because you, like they, are on the right.

If I've said there are many on the right who are racist, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about some of the groups who've tried to use the TP movement to pedal their agenda - the white supremacists including some of the militia movements, etc. The folks who just killed the cops in Vegas are on the right - but they're not like you or Roberta or lisw or bad bob or any other regular poster in the thread. The guy who murdered Dr. Tiller in his church, the guy who killed the guard at the Jewish community center - they're on the right, but they sure as hell are not conservatives by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

Are there people on the left who do just what you do - imply that all on the right 'own' the actions or the views of the crazies. Of course there are. It's politics, after all, which is often conducted at the lowest common denominator.

The thing is - no matter how much you want it to be true, I am not one of those people.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#178120 Jun 13, 2014
Who said it?

''Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is, as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."

http://townhall.com/video/hillary-clinton-n18...

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178121 Jun 13, 2014
Clearwater wrote:
<quoted text>More snide words from ya. As for Sterling nada. Like I said, mob rule. In the case of the Christian baker that objected to making a cake for two homosexuals that ruling just came down. Congrats, you guys that scream about a theocracy that doesn't exist rejoice now that that business owner just lost his right to choose. See now I'm being snide.:)
Well, gee.

How about you show me one post where I've screamed - or talked - or mumbled - or whispered - about a theocracy.

If you can't do that, then thank you. You've just proved my point, and shown how you assign me views you assume I have.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178122 Jun 13, 2014
This is How You Lose a War
Jun. 13, 2014

The names of the towns tug me back a decade to when we were on the road to liberating them. Fallujah. Mosul. Tikrit. We learned how to pronounce them as our nation learned what was necessary to rescue them from the hands of terrorists.

Iraq was not the source of 9/11, but under the leadership of President Bush, we had chosen to take the war to the most hostile regime in the part of the world that wanted to kill us. Saddam Hussein had slaughtered his own people in addition to launching attacks on U.S. forces in violation of the U.N. agreements following his ejection from Kuwait at our hands. It was a thoroughly appropriate first theater for what would become known as The War on Terror.

Well, write its epitaph. War on Terror, 2003-2014. We are done. We have lost. Iraq is falling before our eyes this week as al Qaeda monsters snatch the cities we shed blood to help. Next door in Afghanistan, the Taliban dances in celebration of America’s retreat. Deserter Bowe Bergdahl will not come home a hero, but his kindred spirits will, the five blood-soaked terrorists we released to garner his freedom.

This is what it feels like to lose. This is what it looks like. This is what it smells like. Its stench should repel every American.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178123 Jun 13, 2014
Even among our war-weary citizens, who eventually became the majority, this must be sickening. Even among those who opposed the war from its start, surely their pacifism or Bush hatred or military ambivalence does not stand in the way of a natural human instinct of disillusionment as our nation slinks away from the war zone as our enemies cheer.

President Obama, who fooled some for a while with head fakes like the Afghan surge and a grudging willingness to keep Guantanamo open during his first term, has shown us his soul. He is withdrawing our troops from a war where real progress was under way, in terms of a glimmer of hope for the people of Iraq and Afghanistan— a future guided by stability, honest elections and self-determination for the people.

It would have taken a long time. We needed a President to exert leadership in its purest form— leading a hesitant nation to do the right thing by supporting the war that kept us free from further 9/11s for more than a decade.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178124 Jun 13, 2014
Instead, we have a commander-in-chief driven to end the war, but not to win it. And as if that’s not bad enough, he believes his wily charms can snow a nation into thinking he has been a wartime hero:

The day before 9/11’s tenth anniversary, Obama told us:“There should be no doubt— today, America is stronger, and al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.”

In January 2012:“We’ve decimated al Qaeda’s leadership.”

And September 2012:“Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and bin Laden is dead.” So were four Americans murdered in Benghazi days earlier, necessitating a colossal change of subject with an election mere weeks away.

But two years earlier, Vice President Biden sat down with Larry King on CNN to predict vast glories for the administration’s “handling” of a war that was making progress when they inherited it:“I am very optimistic about Iraq, and it’s going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.” Good call, Joe.

It is years of bad calls that have led to this sad moment, with defeat at hand. And while it is easy to hang this loss around the Obama White House, some of the blame is shouldered by every American failing to maintain focus and will through the most challenging war we have ever fought.

Other wars have had far higher death tolls, but there was a certain clarity to the mission of World War II— beat Hitler and Imperial Japan— and even Vietnam— chase communism from Southeast Asia.

How do you “win” a war on terror? There was never going to be a surrender ceremony aboard an aircraft carrier, with terrorists signing a document assuring a cease-fire. All we could ever hope for is slow, generational change, with Iraq and Afghanistan realizing after a lengthy U.S. presence that we were there to train their own military forces and establish a landscape to permit elections leading to a future far more stable than the cauldrons of violence that had been their fate seemingly forever.

A tall order? Of course. Haven’t we all heard the cries of futility?“Those people don’t know what freedom is and they don’t want it.”“Violence is all they’ve known, they’ll never stop killing each other.”

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178125 Jun 13, 2014
Those are not unreasonable stances. But they are a give-up, an admission that our only lot is to accept that these Godforsaken wildernesses will always be a breeding ground for terror, and all we can do is hope it does not reach us.“Let them kill each other, and leave us out of it,” goes a common refrain of frustration, wholly ignorant of what will happen if we ever actually do that. Sure, Islamist factions will bludgeon each other, but without any beacon of civilization in their midst, terrorist hordes will take plenty of time-outs to engage in their favored pursuits: killing Americans, Israelis and any Muslims trying to wrestle the faith toward less murderous behaviors.

The terrorist agenda is not limited to armed commandeering of various nations to establish a compliant global caliphate. It also includes the violent eradication of Israel and the slaughter of as many Americans as can be found, over there and over here.

Of all the things that made 9/11 possible, the foremost was our failure to recognize that war had long been declared against us. After a few years of vigilance, followed by growing fatigue and then wholesale disinterest in seriously fighting terror, the American people have twice elected the President who has given us exactly what we asked for: surrender.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178126 Jun 13, 2014
So here it is. How will it work out for us as we see Baghdad fall? How will it feel as we see the forces of evil overrun the turf our sons and daughters fought for and died on? What will fill the remaining years of a presidency that has kept its promise to end a war that is in no way ending in terms of the enemy’s aggressions toward us?

As he prepares to welcome home his favored soldier, that traitorous snake Bowe Bergdahl, President Obama fashioned a quote Wednesday that should be replayed over TV footage of the guttings and beheadings that surely await Iraqis, Afghans and who knows how many Israelis and Americans now that we are quitters:“The world is less violent than it has ever been, it is healthier than it has ever been, it is more tolerant than it has ever been.”

Ah, yes, always the tolerance. The man is nothing if not tolerant. Tolerant of illegal immigrants, tolerant of those seeking to change the definition of marriage, tolerant of any one of a number of assaults on the Constitution.

But the tolerance of America’s most dangerous enemies— evidenced by our current surrender and the piecemeal release of terrorists from Gitmo— this is a tolerance likely to carry a death toll.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#178127 Jun 13, 2014
How many Americans will die because we did not have the stomach to sufficiently battle our enemy? And by “we,” I mean the collective American public. Because if we had maintained the spine to stay on a war footing with an enemy that will never tire of killing us, we would never have chosen a leader who has brought us to this tragic defeat.
-----
Thank you Mark Davis!
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/20...

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178128 Jun 13, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Who said it?
''Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is, as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman."
http://townhall.com/video/hillary-clinton-n18...
OOOPS! She'll say, "Define marriage."

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178129 Jun 13, 2014
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
This is How You Lose a War
Jun. 13, 2014
The names of the towns tug me back a decade to when we were on the road to liberating them. Fallujah. Mosul. Tikrit. We learned how to pronounce them as our nation learned what was necessary to rescue them from the hands of terrorists.
Iraq was not the source of 9/11, but under the leadership of President Bush, we had chosen to take the war to the most hostile regime in the part of the world that wanted to kill us. Saddam Hussein had slaughtered his own people in addition to launching attacks on U.S. forces in violation of the U.N. agreements following his ejection from Kuwait at our hands. It was a thoroughly appropriate first theater for what would become known as The War on Terror.
Well, write its epitaph. War on Terror, 2003-2014. We are done. We have lost. Iraq is falling before our eyes this week as al Qaeda monsters snatch the cities we shed blood to help. Next door in Afghanistan, the Taliban dances in celebration of America’s retreat. Deserter Bowe Bergdahl will not come home a hero, but his kindred spirits will, the five blood-soaked terrorists we released to garner his freedom.
This is what it feels like to lose. This is what it looks like. This is what it smells like. Its stench should repel every American.
I have to disagree with you here NF. We won the war and even the Iraqi commanders were in awe of how decisively we won it. We beat them so badly that there have been few wars fought in history where one participant had so dominated another and in such a short time span. We took out there eyes and ears. Then we denied them the ability to launch their planes. Then we took out their air defenses. Then we took out their ability to resupply and finally we rolled over their ground forces. What part of the war do you think we lost? We even handed their country back to them after we rebuilt their ability to distribute their oil. What we couldn't do was give them the cohones to fight those who took advantage of the war by infiltrating and launching their little homicide-bomber campaigns. The Iraqis are going to have to decide if they want freedom or not. If they don't then screw them.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178130 Jun 13, 2014
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
How many Americans will die because we did not have the stomach to sufficiently battle our enemy? And by “we,” I mean the collective American public. Because if we had maintained the spine to stay on a war footing with an enemy that will never tire of killing us, we would never have chosen a leader who has brought us to this tragic defeat.
-----
Thank you Mark Davis!
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/20...
There is one bright spot that I find difficult to talk about but I think it needs to be mentioned. If you were to ask if we are any safer now than we were, I would have to say yes we are in a couple of ways. First we proved we could move large numbers of troops and equipment across the globe in a relatively short while. No country has our capability to do that although the Russians are trying to get to that level of competency. When you think about it, that was an incredible feat.

Secondly, we were able to test the next generation of weapons systems in real time which we were able to develop further into the weapons we have now which are horrible in their destructiveness. We got real world data on everything from tanks to planes. This was a boon from a weapons developer's standpoint. We and our allies benefited from what we've learned.

Thirdly, we showed the world that if the eagle decides to fly, they had better run and hide. In doing so we put fear into the hearts of every person on the face of the Earth. If you're good to us, we will help your country succeed. If you attack us, we will kill concrete.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178131 Jun 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to disagree with you here NF. We won the war and even the Iraqi commanders were in awe of how decisively we won it. We beat them so badly that there have been few wars fought in history where one participant had so dominated another and in such a short time span. We took out there eyes and ears. Then we denied them the ability to launch their planes. Then we took out their air defenses. Then we took out their ability to resupply and finally we rolled over their ground forces. What part of the war do you think we lost? We even handed their country back to them after we rebuilt their ability to distribute their oil. What we couldn't do was give them the cohones to fight those who took advantage of the war by infiltrating and launching their little homicide-bomber campaigns. The Iraqis are going to have to decide if they want freedom or not. If they don't then screw them.
edit: there = their (I be toopid)
common sense

Chicago, IL

#178132 Jun 13, 2014
NEWS-FLASH wrote:
How many Americans will die because we did not have the stomach to sufficiently battle our enemy? And by “we,” I mean the collective American public. Because if we had maintained the spine to stay on a war footing with an enemy that will never tire of killing us, we would never have chosen a leader who has brought us to this tragic defeat.
-----
Thank you Mark Davis!
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/markdavis/20...
You are WIR's polar opposite, only WIR doesn't hide behind anyone else. Mark Davis's following is the lunatic fringe, with you hiding behind his pant leg.
common sense

Chicago, IL

#178133 Jun 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
There is one bright spot that I find difficult to talk about but I think it needs to be mentioned. If you were to ask if we are any safer now than we were, I would have to say yes we are in a couple of ways. First we proved we could move large numbers of troops and equipment across the globe in a relatively short while. No country has our capability to do that although the Russians are trying to get to that level of competency. When you think about it, that was an incredible feat.
Secondly, we were able to test the next generation of weapons systems in real time which we were able to develop further into the weapons we have now which are horrible in their destructiveness. We got real world data on everything from tanks to planes. This was a boon from a weapons developer's standpoint. We and our allies benefited from what we've learned.
Thirdly, we showed the world that if the eagle decides to fly, they had better run and hide. In doing so we put fear into the hearts of every person on the face of the Earth. If you're good to us, we will help your country succeed. If you attack us, we will kill concrete.
I agree, we are unmatched in creativity and capability, and sheer will power. We can destroy any enemy but our capability of fostering peace and civility lags behind, we haven't been able to foster peace and civility at home yet, at least not in several decades. We have our work cut out for us, but we can succeed both at home and abroad.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178134 Jun 13, 2014
common sense wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, we are unmatched in creativity and capability, and sheer will power. We can destroy any enemy but our capability of fostering peace and civility lags behind, we haven't been able to foster peace and civility at home yet, at least not in several decades. We have our work cut out for us, but we can succeed both at home and abroad.
Well said, CS.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178135 Jun 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
I have to disagree with you here NF. We won the war and even the Iraqi commanders were in awe of how decisively we won it. We beat them so badly that there have been few wars fought in history where one participant had so dominated another and in such a short time span. We took out there eyes and ears. Then we denied them the ability to launch their planes. Then we took out their air defenses. Then we took out their ability to resupply and finally we rolled over their ground forces. What part of the war do you think we lost? We even handed their country back to them after we rebuilt their ability to distribute their oil. What we couldn't do was give them the cohones to fight those who took advantage of the war by infiltrating and launching their little homicide-bomber campaigns. The Iraqis are going to have to decide if they want freedom or not. If they don't then screw them.
We lost the occupation, not the war.

It's as if we looked at a list of all the things we did right in Germany and Japan between 1945-1950 and used it as a 'do not do' list. What it looks like we DID follow at first was everything that failed in the first years of the Vietnam War.

The mistakes were not made by the troops. With a few notable exceptions, mostly very early, the mistakes weren't even made by field level commanders. The mistakes were made in Washington - the Pentagon, the White House/Naval Observatory/Undisclosed location, and of course the Green Zone, which couldn't have been more a farce if they'd called it's head the Wizard of Oz during the occupation.

I supported the decision to go to war and take out Saddam, and I thought he had WMD. What I didn't know when I supported that decision was just how abysmally the entire operation would be conducted for the first couple years.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178136 Jun 13, 2014
WildWeirdWillie wrote:
<quoted text>We lost the occupation, not the war.
It's as if we looked at a list of all the things we did right in Germany and Japan between 1945-1950 and used it as a 'do not do' list. What it looks like we DID follow at first was everything that failed in the first years of the Vietnam War.
The mistakes were not made by the troops. With a few notable exceptions, mostly very early, the mistakes weren't even made by field level commanders. The mistakes were made in Washington - the Pentagon, the White House/Naval Observatory/Undisclosed location, and of course the Green Zone, which couldn't have been more a farce if they'd called it's head the Wizard of Oz during the occupation.
I supported the decision to go to war and take out Saddam, and I thought he had WMD. What I didn't know when I supported that decision was just how abysmally the entire operation would be conducted for the first couple years.
I see it differently Willie. I don't think I would look to World War 2, Vietnam, or any other war in history to see what happened here. But, we did use very specific battle plans that are the standards of any war. You cut off the enemy's ability to command and communicate, you keep the enemy from resupplying their front-line troops, you cut off your enemy's retreat, and you get control of the enemy's air, water, and ground. And, we did it to the third largest standing army on the planet that had troops that were battle hardened, which our troops weren't at the time.

As far as the occupation went, when you have an enemy willing to hide behind the skirts of women and other innocents you only have a couple of options, you fire your munitions into the houses or you go home. If you'll remember, every time an innocent was killed, the main stream media stuck a microphone in the face of someone opposed to the war. That got sent out immediately all over the world and the jelly-legged politicians made their decisions according to that. You can't hope to win an occupation like that. In fact, there's no chance of you winning. The main stream media and the people opposed to everything they tried to do over there lost the occupation and are the main reason why they are still fighting over there. Arabs respect strength which is why Gaddafi and Saddam could rule them so easily. When they see weakness they will exploit it.

Since: Nov 08

Chicago, IL

#178137 Jun 13, 2014
You guys all have great points. My take on things may sound a bit different but I think what we all have in common is we're sick of war. I myself didn't think we should have gone into Iraq or Afghanistan, but I supported the troops. I love my country and it's good to hear that you do to. We're in this together.

“Help Cecil Help!”

Since: Dec 06

Lafayette IN

#178139 Jun 13, 2014
Strength and Honor wrote:
<quoted text>
I see it differently Willie. I don't think I would look to World War 2, Vietnam, or any other war in history to see what happened here. But, we did use very specific battle plans that are the standards of any war. You cut off the enemy's ability to command and communicate, you keep the enemy from resupplying their front-line troops, you cut off your enemy's retreat, and you get control of the enemy's air, water, and ground. And, we did it to the third largest standing army on the planet that had troops that were battle hardened, which our troops weren't at the time.
As far as the occupation went, when you have an enemy willing to hide behind the skirts of women and other innocents you only have a couple of options, you fire your munitions into the houses or you go home. If you'll remember, every time an innocent was killed, the main stream media stuck a microphone in the face of someone opposed to the war. That got sent out immediately all over the world and the jelly-legged politicians made their decisions according to that. You can't hope to win an occupation like that. In fact, there's no chance of you winning. The main stream media and the people opposed to everything they tried to do over there lost the occupation and are the main reason why they are still fighting over there. Arabs respect strength which is why Gaddafi and Saddam could rule them so easily. When they see weakness they will exploit it.
If the occupation had been properly conducted, there would have been far less of an opportunity for those terrorists to hide behind the skirts of women and the bodies of children - and that started when Rumsfeld had a litter of kittens after Shinseki gave his occupation numbers estimates to Congress. When the amateurs in the Green Zone started making sweeping civil decisions about Iraq, all but eliminating any vestige of civil authority (which could have been reconstituted if we'd been so inclined, getting around to deBathification later like we did in Germany and Japan), it was almost as if they created a petri dish in which both an insurgency and outside terrorists could flourish.

The media, the jelly legged politicians (at least the anti-war ones), the predictable faces who wanted the microphones in their face - they weren't responsible for ANY of that, and that's when the seeds for what is happening in Iraq now were sown. A proper occupation in the early post war period would have (greatly?) reduced the chances that we would have needed to stage the surge in 07, and given Iraq a much longer period of relative stability to iron out the considerable difficulties they're going to have to face.

There are no guarantees in war, which is why I said reduced rather than eliminated. Iraq's a clusterfek of ethnic and sectarian and tribal tensions, and we knew that going in - or should have. We knew what the tactics of an insurgency and/or outside terrorists were going to be in advance too.

Even with knowing all that in advance, the way we went about things the first couple of years made things considerably harder for both ourselves and for the Iraqis, and easier for both domestic and foreign terror groups - and the Iranians.

You can't blame the media or the anti-war types for any of that. Those were decisions taken by civil and military authorities at the highest levels, not the grunts in the field or the officers who had direct/field command over them, or the media, or the liberals, or any other imaginary November criminals you can come up with.

World War II is a perfect example of how to properly occupy a country in preparation for restoring full sovereignty. The early years of Vietnam are a perfect example of how not to conduct counterinsurgency operations while trying to build civil authority. That's why they are relevant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 3 min Joe Fortuna 970,139
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min LAWEST100 642,032
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 8 min It aint necessari... 38,830
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 15 min LAWEST100 618,449
Play "end of the word" part 2 34 min andet1987 1,743
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 58 min here 104,780
---*PHOTO of ANTICHRIST 'seated' in TEMPLE 59 min ImFree2Choose 2
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr dr shrink 44,474
More from around the web