No apologies for arrogance

Recently, President Obama apologized to the world because we, the people of the United States, are arrogant.

[aveteran]

And Terry, don't confuse leadership with an illegal, unwarranted revenge invasion based on deliberately fraudulent intelligence estimates.

[paul sinclair]

it would have been more to the point if he had pointed out the arrogance has to be bourne by the political establishments and those gods who lead the rest of us into these conflicts and piously deny doing any wrong.
you would have thought that given the history behind nations seeking to overthow each other we would have learned by now to try something different

[A Real Veteran]

Kudos to you, Terry, for your service to country. Unlike "Aveteran" who wouldn't make a pimple on a REAL veterans a$$, your comments are appreciated. Let us not forget about Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf heroes as well. Carry on!

[paul sinclair]

never mind! by the time it goes off worldwide again im pretty sure someone will make a proper job of it, what with nukes being sneaked out the back doors or DIY items that pinky and the brain put together

with any luck when the smoke clears we will rehash the information available and decide survival might be an option, while religion and government officials will have proved to be invalid and a little silly under the circumstances! i just wonder if it ever works? that beating sense into someone theory!

but fuvk it whatever you all decide to do i can honestly say thanks for killing my hopes of living like a child in a world full of people who care one for another,you managed to depress the shit out of me for years, so im off to enjoy the rest of my life, happy hero makeing and you can keep your memorys i have my own

[JeffreyABrown]

Does anybody honestly believe Obama was talking about our veterans when he apologized for America's "arrogance" in the recent past? Without putting too fine a point on it, what else could you call the Bush administration's dismissing "the opinions of old Europe" as "irrelevant" EXCEPT arrogance? And the same goes for dismissing any advice the world gave us (even though most of it turned out to be true) that didn't say what Bush and his cronies wanted to hear?
America's government, just a few short years ago, WAS arrogant--and the rest of the world took notice, believe me. It caused our former and (hopefully) future allies no end of domestic political problems (remember what happened to Tony Blair?) and what Obama said was going to have to be said by WHOEVER took over as president after Bush--because Bush dropped the ball, worldwide, so hard that it broke the concrete.
Bush did, quite frankly, more long-term harm to this country than Mussolini did--and Mussolini was TRYING to do us harm!

[Bro1856]

aveteran wrote:

And Terry, don't confuse leadership with an illegal, unwarranted revenge invasion based on deliberately fraudulent intelligence estimates.

1) Wasn't illegal. The invasion was givena green light by the UN. Also, we only had a cease fire with Iraq so we could've gone in at any time.
2) Slick Willie Clinton, John Kerry, the Brits, etc all had the same intelligence estimates. Course, its more convienient to demonize Bush. In addition, if Hussein hadn't purposely said he had the weapons, etc and had accepted the 18 or so UN resolutions, none of that would probably have happened.
3) I'm GLAD we went in and took out Insane Hussein. He used chemical weapons on his OWN people. Rape rooms, mass graves, etc. The world is a better place without him and his two sons. It probbaly would have been better though if he showed the Arabs the true meaning of terror and detonated a few nukes about 1 mile above several Iraqi cities. Worked in Japan, might have worked in the Middle East.

[JeffreyABrown]

Bro1856 wrote:

1) Wasn't illegal. The invasion was givena green light by the UN. Also, we only had a cease fire with Iraq so we could've gone in at any time.
2) Slick Willie Clinton, John Kerry, the Brits, etc all had the same intelligence estimates. Course, its more convienient to demonize Bush. In addition, if Hussein hadn't purposely said he had the weapons, etc and had accepted the 18 or so UN resolutions, none of that would probably have happened.
3) I'm GLAD we went in and took out Insane Hussein. He used chemical weapons on his OWN people. Rape rooms, mass graves, etc. The world is a better place without him and his two sons. It probbaly would have been better though if he showed the Arabs the true meaning of terror and detonated a few nukes about 1 mile above several Iraqi cities. Worked in Japan, might have worked in the Middle East.

What "intelligence" are you talking about? John Kerry and Bill Clinton (once he left the White House) didn't have their own private intelligence-gathering networks; they got their information from the CIA--and the CIA was under pressure from Cheney to squelch any info he didn't like and promote whatever info he did--which is NOT how the way to sift through raw data. The Brits, too, got a lot of their stuff from us, but their own people warned Blair that some of what they were getting from the US was "suspect". Blair ignored them, went with Bush, and his own people threw him out of office. It's an open secret around the world that the Bush-era "intelligence" on Iraq was "cooked".
As to getting rid of Saddam Hussein, I don't think anybody anywhere misses that bastard but what it's cost us to get rid of him wasn't close to worth the price; we're broke, we haven't paid a dime of the Iraq invasion's costs yet, and our volunteer military is in tatters. Anyway, Kim Jong Il was always an even worse bastard than Hussein and he's GOT the nukes we only sort of thought Hussein might be working on but wasn't. We blew our whole wad on a fourth-rate threat and let a first or second-rate one get even more powerful.
As to nuking cities for failing to show proper gratitude toward us after we'd trashed their country, that kind of brain-dead thinking only works in comic books and action movies. And reality is neither.

[paul sinclair]

Bro1856 wrote:

<quoted text>
1) Wasn't illegal. The invasion was givena green light by the UN. Also, we only had a cease fire with Iraq so we could've gone in at any time.
2) Slick Willie Clinton, John Kerry, the Brits, etc all had the same intelligence estimates. Course, its more convienient to demonize Bush. In addition, if Hussein hadn't purposely said he had the weapons, etc and had accepted the 18 or so UN resolutions, none of that would probably have happened.
3) I'm GLAD we went in and took out Insane Hussein. He used chemical weapons on his OWN people. Rape rooms, mass graves, etc. The world is a better place without him and his two sons. It probbaly would have been better though if he showed the Arabs the true meaning of terror and detonated a few nukes about 1 mile above several Iraqi cities. Worked in Japan, might have worked in the Middle East.

smoke and mirrors all of it! the Uk along with the USA has sold 57 billion ($£?) worth of military hardware to saudi within the past ten years, dont you think if we were making the world a safer place we would have not let weapons manufacturers sell out our advantages to the enemy? before long the only tactical advantage anyone will have is a pre-emptive nuclear strike,China are supplying islamists in africa along with russia doing the same in iran.why dont you just grow up and see whats going on.Bush was more concerned about the oil companies and his business associates welfare than your countrymen,after all none of them have died in battle. Even a seemingly inocious thing as chritianity has been turned on its head by the insistance of Bush that he is one.........
Now our enemy will feel justified in killing and maiming any innocent party as 'those christians are all the same' How about we claim back our countrys by putting the boot into these dubiously elected thespian pretenders!

[Sua Sponte]

Thanks for your service Mr. Tyson.

[paul sinclair]

i did not even mention the other countrys where i have seen military equipment sold from the UK and USA used against thier own kind,Why is no-one accountable for selling this stuff? simply put its a reach around to ensure we make friends with those types of fascist dictators we love to boast about removing........
i think the new intelligensa are not very intelligent at all, arm them with a diploma and the whole world goes to fuvk in a few years......

Some it seems,never retain the common sense they were born with,Bush it seems was suffering from a superiority complex, shit thrown from a great hieght can splatter over a large area.

i think this bro1859 wouldnt be so sure about nuclear weapons if one went of in his vacinity.
just so you know bro1856 the world is a worse place now! and if you had been so certain about hussain why did your country not invade when he was gassing the kurds? Answer= BECAUSE NO-ONE IN POWER THOUGHT IT MATTERED.( i include the UK)
so your comments are invalid unless your care is universal!

[Bro1856]

paul sinclair wrote:

i did not even mention the other countrys where i have seen military equipment sold from the UK and USA used against thier own kind,Why is no-one accountable for selling this stuff? simply put its a reach around to ensure we make friends with those types of fascist dictators we love to boast about removing........
i think the new intelligensa are not very intelligent at all, arm them with a diploma and the whole world goes to fuvk in a few years......
Some it seems,never retain the common sense they were born with,Bush it seems was suffering from a superiority complex,**** thrown from a great hieght can splatter over a large area.
i think this bro1859 wouldnt be so sure about nuclear weapons if one went of in his vacinity.
just so you know bro1856 the world is a worse place now! and if you had been so certain about hussain why did your country not invade when he was gassing the kurds? Answer= BECAUSE NO-ONE IN POWER THOUGHT IT MATTERED.( i include the UK)
so your comments are invalid unless your care is universal!

Personally, I think we should have (and should now) tell the UN to eff off. In the first war, we should have gone all the way to Bagdad and done the job right.

Instead, we appeased other countries and followed the UN mandate not to enter Bagdad. Bunch of bleeding heart, anti-american, islamofacist aholes. they are.

[Incredulous]

Bro1856 wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally, I think we should have (and should now) tell the UN to eff off. In the first war, we should have gone all the way to Bagdad and done the job right.
Instead, we appeased other countries and followed the UN mandate not to enter Bagdad. Bunch of bleeding heart, anti-american, islamofacist aholes. they are.

Oh, contrare....Bush 41 knew what his son refused to believe -- that we wouldn't be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and that the warring religious factions would implode on each other.

And we didn't appease other countries -- we told'em to we'd do this without them and we told the terrorists to "bring it on" (Bush 43).

Now we're paying the price with our young people's lives because we told the UN to "eff off".

[JeffreyABrown]

Bro1856 wrote:

Personally, I think we should have (and should now) tell the UN to eff off. In the first war, we should have gone all the way to Bagdad and done the job right.
Instead, we appeased other countries and followed the UN mandate not to enter Bagdad. Bunch of bleeding heart, anti-american, islamofacist aholes. they are.

We actually turned a profit in the first Gulf War BECAUSE we accepted help from other countries and, because they were contributing ONLY to kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, that's why we stopped where and when we did. When people supply you with money and troops they have the right to attach conditions.
If we'd gone in essentially solo, like we did the last time, we'd have ended up pretty much in the mess we're in now: broke, no allies, and most of the world--and ALL of the Arab world--mad at us. Considering how the first Gulf War turned out, and considering how THIS one is turning out, I'd say the old man knew a helluva lot more about how the world works than his son did.

[Bro1856]

Incredulous wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, contrare....Bush 41 knew what his son refused to believe -- that we wouldn't be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and that the warring religious factions would implode on each other.
And we didn't appease other countries -- we told'em to we'd do this without them and we told the terrorists to "bring it on" (Bush 43).
Now we're paying the price with our young people's lives because we told the UN to "eff off".

We had more countries with us on this round then the last.

We are fighting a war against unconventional opponents. These are people that do not want to sit and talk. They do not care if children, women and innocents die. The only thing they care about is getting to see Allah. Fine- lets arrange the meetings for them.

What is needed is to untie our hands. Tell the politicians to shut up and let the military do the job they are meant to do. Kill people and break things. When politicians get involved in wars- we lose. Unfortunately, we now have a party in charge whose leadership has nothing but contempt for our Armed Forces.

The UN doesn't like us and they don't have ANY morale authority (any group that has the Sudan and Cuba on a human rights panel is a joke). We need to kick them out, withdraw, and make their building into something useful.

Finally, all the liberals out there should explain their hypocrisy on one issue. Slick Willie Clinton sent our troops into Kosovo - a region with worse ethnic issues than Iraq. We ARE STILL there- spening $$$ and lives. Where is the outrage over this issue? Maybe it's because saving white Balkans are more important than Arabs? Maybe its because we had to distract the public from financial ehtical problems? Or maybe its because the Dem leadership wants to play politics with soldier's lives.

Of course, I might just be cynical...

[Bro1856]

JeffreyABrown wrote:

<quoted text>
We actually turned a profit in the first Gulf War BECAUSE we accepted help from other countries and, because they were contributing ONLY to kicking Iraq out of Kuwait, that's why we stopped where and when we did. When people supply you with money and troops they have the right to attach conditions.
If we'd gone in essentially solo, like we did the last time, we'd have ended up pretty much in the mess we're in now: broke, no allies, and most of the world--and ALL of the Arab world--mad at us. Considering how the first Gulf War turned out, and considering how THIS one is turning out, I'd say the old man knew a helluva lot more about how the world works than his son did.

Since we provide the UN with a place to stay, 25% of its normal operating budget, and we bail the world out with humanitarian missions all the time- I think they can take direction from us every now and then.

They can always leave and move to Europe...

[JeffreyABrown]

Bro1856 wrote:

We had more countries with us on this round then the last.
We are fighting a war against unconventional opponents. These are people that do not want to sit and talk. They do not care if children, women and innocents die. The only thing they care about is getting to see Allah. Fine- lets arrange the meetings for them.
What is needed is to untie our hands. Tell the politicians to shut up and let the military do the job they are meant to do. Kill people and break things. When politicians get involved in wars- we lose. Unfortunately, we now have a party in charge whose leadership has nothing but contempt for our Armed Forces.
The UN doesn't like us and they don't have ANY morale authority (any group that has the Sudan and Cuba on a human rights panel is a joke). We need to kick them out, withdraw, and make their building into something useful.
Finally, all the liberals out there should explain their hypocrisy on one issue. Slick Willie Clinton sent our troops into Kosovo - a region with worse ethnic issues than Iraq. We ARE STILL there- spening $$$ and lives. Where is the outrage over this issue? Maybe it's because saving white Balkans are more important than Arabs? Maybe its because we had to distract the public from financial ehtical problems? Or maybe its because the Dem leadership wants to play politics with soldier's lives.
Of course, I might just be cynical...

So, uh, are you in favor of SAVING Arab lives or taking them in job lots? You endorsed both positions...
As to our having more nations with us this time than last, that's absolute poppycock. I have no idea who told you that, but they're dead wrong.
As to the nature of our opponents, which ones are you talking about? The Taliban in Afghanistan--which fits your description--or the irregular militias in Iraq, which don't. As for uncoupling our military from political control, you'd have to throw our Constitution into a shredder to do it. There weren't many issues this nation's founders agreed on, but civilian control of the military was right at the top of ALL their lists. You see, they too had once been labeled "insurgents"--and they knew all too well what a military turned loose to "kill people and break things" looked like. And they wanted no parts of it.

[George]

aveteran wrote:

And Terry, don't confuse leadership with an illegal, unwarranted revenge invasion based on deliberately fraudulent intelligence estimates.

Back again Smedley? How many medals did you win this week?

[JeffreyABrown]

Bro1856 wrote:

...Or maybe its because the Dem leadership wants to play politics with soldier's lives...

I feel quite safe in saying that no president in American history "played politics with soldier's lives" to the degree that George W. Bush did. Even Kevin Phillips, the Republican strategist who helped engineer "the emerging Republican majority" back in the sixties admitted as much in his book "American Theocracy".

[Incredulous]

"Rove was the first administration official to publicly make the case for using the war as a partisan issue, a marked shift in tone from Bush's repeated emphasis on unity and bipartisanship in confronting and defeating radical Islamic terrorism."

"In late August 2002, at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Nashville, Cheney said,'Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us'."

"President Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the invasion of Iraq. He made the decision to invade, and he signed off on a strategy for selling the war that was less than candid and honest."

"What Happened"
Scott McClellan - Former Bush Administration Press Secretary

[JeffreyABrown]

"Rove was the FIRST administration official to publicly make the case for using the WAR as a PARTISAN issue..." Gee, doesn't that say it all?