Ie., politicians being disingenuous and stupid about what's going on.
Any idiot can see parallels. The question is weighing them, and deciding what are the decisive factors. When Bush says he sees no parallels, we can't tell if he's lying or truly that stupid. Hard to tell with that fellow.
Anytime you go in, or do anything, you should have a clear idea of your goal, a clear plan for acheiving it, and weigh the costs versus the benefit. Every damn 2/Lt knows that.
Bush didn't have a plan that he could share with us. Now it looks like he was mistaken about things like WMDs.
Even if there were no WMDs, the critical factor has always been, when you get it, what are you going to do with it? Can we do something with Iraq, in a manageable time and cost, that is better than what was there, ie Saddam?
Or will we simply be opening a hornets' nest, a Pandora's box, at the worst possible time?
Do the math.
Now we're there, what are we going to do? Sheesh, let me think - maybe the logical thing is to STAND IN THE FUCKING KILL ZONE, like so many deer in the headlights, and beat our chests about how tough we are.
So how many of you tough guys ever actually did this shit? Any of you have job descriptions that authorized use of your brains?
Obviously, it's not about Iraq. Obviously, it's about Washington DC.
Of course Bush didn't know the mind was blind, but of course that is my point...These guys and their ilk don't even think that someone might be different or have a handycap and would wear something to conceal the embarrassment of it -- they only see things in their own little world. In my opinion they are very small minded, self centered and arrogant people.
Video & Report of the incident:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/14.html#a8710
he knows he can't actually answer a question.
Iraq and Vietnam.
Well, DUH. Of course not. He wasn't there. Too busy partying.
spell them out for us. Oh, and to be fair, please list the contrasting differences as well.
if you don't understand the problems in trying to convert people to democracy by sending in Marines, you're far too stupid to talk to.
BTW, I am a former Marine. No better friend, no worse enemy. But I was also commissioned, and the absolute worst, most treacherous act you can do to your people is lead them into a stupid, pointless fight, where your goal is not acheivable. I served and was educated by the services during the anti-counterinsurgency era (67-80), and this shapes my POV.
You cannot teach democracy to the unwilling by pointing a gun at them. Iraq carries the same fundamental problems as Vietnam did. Iraq was a strategic distraction from al qaeda, and is probably a major contributor to why we have not caught OBL.
The chickenhawks of the RNC did not go into Iraq to displace Hussein, or eliminate WMDs. They did it to capture the attention and government of the most powerful nation on earth. These chickenhawks do not understand the limits of military power - not because they are stupid, but because they don't care. Things are working fine for the RNC; they are managing to concentrate power wonderfully. It's just that the troops pay in blood, and the nation pays in money, and our goals, because we are tied up in a "war" that has no plan.
This is not a situation where we are pressed into the defensive. We have the resources to take the offensive; but those resources are controlled by pigs who are in no way concerned about the nation, only their own power. The chickenhawks of the RNC don't care about catching OBL, or they would have. For them, the "war on terror" is just a way to perpetuate their power.
given their POV.
For my own decision process, there are 2 material distinctions. 1st, PGM technology is a tremendous military advantage. 2nd, there are no adjacent supporting states.
The 1st issue is over. It's not a military problem anymore. The 2nd issue is dubious, because of the the fluidity of the social situation, ie, muslims come and go cutting each others and everybody else's throats as they see fit. Neither of those issues would be decisive. It is ALWAYS a question of, now that you've caught it, what are you gonna do with it? And is it worth it?
FROM THE BEGINNING, it was obviously never a question of whether we could knock over Saddam. It was a question whether the result would be worth the cost. Can we install an alternative govt that would be less of a threat than Saddam, and should we do that at that time, instead of focusing on the 9/11 perps?
Right now, it sure looks like Saddam was scared enough that we might push him over, that he did in fact get rid of his WMDs. I do not believe that WMDs could remain hidden this long, and I am very dubious about those who say, it was an honest mistake. Maybe, maybe not. None of that relieves the fundamental questions about our ability to improve on Saddam. Ie., are Iraqis different than other humans, can we point guns at them and covert them to our culture before the end of the Presidential term? Or, for that matter, in any definite time?
But there is a bigger question, that has nothing to do with Iraq, and that has to do with not going to war unless the country wants to, and doing what we can to enlist natural allies.
Dubya didn't do any of that. Organized states should all be opposed to terrorism, but Dubya couldn't line them up, and really didn't care. If he wanted to catch OBL, he'd have focused on that. But he didn't, did he?
So he went off to war without convincing the American people, and now he's living with the fact that they didn't want the war. You make your bed, you sleep in it.
What I personally am concerned about has nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with the corruption of the US governing process. Dubya wants to go to war, not because he gives a damn about Jesus or evil-doers; but because it is the most certain way to concentrate power, and particularly among his cronies.
The willingness of the RNC to sell the Iraq war as being a war against 9/11 perps speaks volumes about their fundamental dishonesty.
Democrats are preferable simply because they are not so thoroughly professional in their crookedness. They have no vision or ambition; all they want to do is fuck interns, when they could be fucking the entire country.
We need to exercise our right and power to fire politicians, or we will lose it altogether.
Ie., politicians being disingenuous and stupid about what's going on.
Any idiot can see parallels. The question is weighing them, and deciding what are the decisive factors. When Bush says he sees no parallels, we can't tell if he's lying or truly that stupid. Hard to tell with that fellow.
Anytime you go in, or do anything, you should have a clear idea of your goal, a clear plan for acheiving it, and weigh the costs versus the benefit. Every damn 2/Lt knows that.
Bush didn't have a plan that he could share with us. Now it looks like he was mistaken about things like WMDs.
Even if there were no WMDs, the critical factor has always been, when you get it, what are you going to do with it? Can we do something with Iraq, in a manageable time and cost, that is better than what was there, ie Saddam?
Or will we simply be opening a hornets' nest, a Pandora's box, at the worst possible time?
Do the math.
Now we're there, what are we going to do? Sheesh, let me think - maybe the logical thing is to STAND IN THE FUCKING KILL ZONE, like so many deer in the headlights, and beat our chests about how tough we are.
So how many of you tough guys ever actually did this shit? Any of you have job descriptions that authorized use of your brains?
Obviously, it's not about Iraq. Obviously, it's about Washington DC.
(1) Do you think that there's anything I've said that isn't known in the Pentagon? If there was an answer for any of this, don't you think Bush would be talking about it? Or do you think it's another Vietnam, i.e., military forces maintaining a positive attitude and doing the best they can in the face of ignorant, short-sighted and duplicitous politicians?
(2) Do you think that our PFCs can create a stable government in Iraq, or a more stable region, within a reasonable time, a time worth the lost money, blood and opportunities? Would you like to share with us how putting West Virginian police in the streets of Baghdad will help convert these folks to democracy, or pacificism? You know, make them a little less anxious to kill us and each other? Maybe Coors and Anheuser Busch should be getting a bigger piece of that action, eh?
(3) Can you imagine why Bush didn't focus on catching the 9/11 perps, like OBL? Why could he have possibly wanted to open a 2 front war, especially in the mideast, of all places? And why did he go to war without a serious effort to sell the American people and their allies? Perhaps because his plans can't withstand scrutiny?
well actually not at all...
to recognize any differences.
(1) posts to himself, or (2) thinks he can address somebody else by posting to himself?
Regardless of how clumsy you may be, your game of inferring allegations is tiresome. If you have a point, say it. If you don't, give us a break and shut the fuck up.
but you forget, it's Bush who needs to justify his policy, not me, or anybody else.
It's not up to me to find differences between Iraq & Vietnam.
It's up to Bush to conduct an effective foreign policy, and protect Americans from this shit, at a minimal cost.
Anybody who gets up and says he "sees no parallels" (ie, sees no similarities) is too fucking ignorant and/or dishonest to run the country.
But we knew that all along, didn't we?
Your lack of an answer raises another question. It's not so much the parallels, or even what issue may be decisive. It's about basic competence and honesty in government.
It's NOT ABOUT IRAQ. It's about whether we should have REpublicans, who are almost certainly lying when they claim to be too damn stupid to know what's going on, running the country.
Almost as many Americans have died in Iraq as died in WTC, and OBL is still running around loose. What can you expect from a crew who have no loyalty to the country, only their cronies?
not mine. It's his foreign policy, not mine.
You haven't answered anything, and of course that's because there aren't answers.
Bush could get lucky, and the Iraqis turn into pacifistic democrats, and all the troops come home with their mission accomplished. I will be happy to vote for him when that happens. Don't look very likely, though, does it?
Your folks like Rove are so fucking tough, sitting on your fat asses in air conditioned offices, saying that some PFC in al Anbar should "stay the course" because he's tough. If YOU were doing YOUR job, and using your BRAIN, he wouldn't be out there risking his life pointlessly.
and I'm sure the reason you aren't telling us Iraq begins with an "I", not a "V", is that you haven't figured it out.
But He Knew an Exit Plan For the Vietnam War. For Himself(eom).
For the record, I'm a flaming liberal who wants Bush out of office.
But let's be fair. He called the reporter by name, so we can assume they've met before. The banter between the two seem to have more of a joking nature than of chastising. Joking about a man's blindness is in poor taste, but hardly an act of evil.
Bush has done enough to get a long spell in purgatory. Manufactured offenses are not necessary.
mean frat-boy personality at work. His jokes to the press corp are usually of a mocking nature , i.e. baldness, shades, etc. and it intimidates the other reporters because they do not want to get singled out in the future.
Secondly, he apologized to the reporter later so obviously he did not know him--or if he did it was in very bad taste.