General Patton Speaks On The Mid East

[red states rule]

Wait, then the call to arms and the whine from the left that Osama Bin laden has not been captured is, as usual , a rouse?

That will be coming in a later post

 

[Gunny]

I was trying, in a vain attempt, to get MM to answer a question

Dude, no offense intended (much anyway), but threads have a topic title for a reason. Not saying you can't stray from it, but EVERY thread is NOT a forum for you and MM to argue EVERY topic under the sun.

And I'm pointing a finger at YOU because while MM DOES respond to you, you are the one that goes off-topic first. If you want to argue everything under the sun, there are several threads currently open where you do just that. Use them.

Otherwise, we really only need one forum and one thread on the board.

 

[red states rule]

Dude, no offense intended (much anyway), but threads have a topic title for a reason. Not saying you can't stray from it, but EVERY thread is NOT a forum for you and MM to argue EVERY topic under the sun.

And I'm pointing a finger at YOU because while MM DOES respond to you, you are the one that goes off-topic first. If you want to argue everything under the sun, there are several threads currently open where you do just that. Use them.

Otherwise, we really only need one forum and one thread on the board.

He is the one who strayed off topic - nothing new for him

 

[Gunny]

He is the one who strayed off topic - nothing new for him

There's a difference between the natural evolution of a topic, and taking one that is discussing the Iraq War and dropping election bullshit into it out of the blue.

 

[jodylee]

\

Yes

Saddam was a threat to the US and his neighbors - and had to be taken out

Sadam was in no way a threat, with all the UN sanctions he was powerless.

And his nuclar capablities were taken out in the eighties by the israili air force in one swoop. against the american governments wishes as he was an supported by america to fight the russians.

 

[Gunny]

Sadam was in no way a threat, with all the UN sanctions he was powerless.

And his nuclar capablities were taken out in the eighties by the israili air force in one swoop. against the american governments wishes as he was an supported by america to fight the russians.

See Post 8 for response.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sadam was in no way a threat, with all the UN sanctions he was powerless.

And his nuclar capablities were taken out in the eighties by the israili air force in one swoop. against the american governments wishes as he was an supported by america to fight the russians.

Simply hogwash. After the fact we have the documents that PROVE he was simply waiting for sanctions to be lifted to return to Nuclear research and mass production of Biological and Chemical weapons. As for Sanctions he was paying off France, Russia , Germany and China to ensure those sanctions wouldn't get renewed.

The UN had inspectors there BECAUSE he never proved he destroyed TONS of materials AND he had all the materials for nuclear research in sealed drums, that he could open any time he felt like. Further he was researching and testing missiles capable of longer ranges and able to deliver any WMD he wanted.

Now do the usual liberal tap dance and claim you have no idea what I am talking about and demand a link. You can just Google it up for yourself unless you to are computer challanged and need to be reminded of general information reported in the press and can't seem to find the Google button.

 

[maineman]

Prioritize the threats facing America in the spring of '03. Kim Jong Il. Iran. Osama bin Laden. Any number of evil doers slipping though our swiss cheese-like port security. any number of evil doers slipping though our swiss cheese-like borders. Saddam.

If you put Saddam on the top of that list it is just like my previous analogy:

"A gang of thugs are trying to break into my front door, my wife has accidently set the kitchen on fire, and I have termites. What should I do? Time to call Terminex!"

 

[CSM]

Prioritize the threats facing America in the spring of '03. Kim Jong Il. Iran. Osama bin Laden. Any number of evil doers slipping though our swiss cheese-like port security. any number of evil doers slipping though our swiss cheese-like borders. Saddam.

If you put Saddam on the top of that list it is just like my previous analogy:

"A gang of thugs are trying to break into my front door, my wife has accidently set the kitchen on fire, and I have termites. What should I do? Time to call Terminex!"

I would surely hope that our government is capable of doing more than one single thing at a time or even of addressing more than one single issue at a time. If not, we taxpayers are wasting a whole bunch of money for nothing.

 

[maineman]

I would surely hope that our government is capable of doing more than one single thing at a time or even of addressing more than one single issue at a time. If not, we taxpayers are wasting a whole bunch of money for nothing.

honestly. what foreign policy issue do you think has been the overwhelming priority of this adminstration since March of 2003?

I am not suggesting that our government cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, I am saying that it has been chewing an enormous wad of gum called Iraq and walking at a snail's pace on the issues that I BELIEVE were and continue to be a much greater priority.

 

[CSM]

honestly. what foreign policy issue do you think has been the overwhelming priority of this adminstration since March of 2003?

I am not suggesting that our government cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, I am saying that it has been chewing an enormous wad of gum called Iraq and walking at a snail's pace on the issues that I BELIEVE were and continue to be a much greater priority.

Guess what, when you get to be part of the government, you can work on getting things re-prioritized! I suspect that new priorities will be set with the results of the next election.

The point is, the government is set up (at least I hope it is) to handle multiple issues/crisis at once, unlike the homeowner, who may or may not be able to handle multiple crisis.

 

[maineman]

to suggest that the war in Iraq has not consumed the energy and attention of the Bush administration for the last four plus years is really..well... really not true.

 

[CSM]

to suggest that the war in Iraq has not consumed the energy and attention of the Bush administration for the last four plus years is really..well... really not true.

Not saying it hasn't but to suggest that has been the SOLE focus is also not true. I seem to remember a few economic summits, negotiations with N. Korea, illegal immigration and a few other 'minor' issues that got the administrations attention as well. Let's not forget that Congress plays a role in all this too...you already know what I think of Congress!

 

[maineman]

Not saying it hasn't but to suggest that has been the SOLE focus is also not true. I seem to remember a few economic summits, negotiations with N. Korea, illegal immigration and a few other 'minor' issues that got the administrations attention as well. Let's not forget that Congress plays a role in all this too...you already know what I think of Congress!

I have never suggested that we focused on nothing else... just that we got little else done.

I am saying that we have spent the overwhelming share of energy and attention on Iraq...we have spent five years, nearly a trillion dollars, over 30K dead and wounded, and our enemy is just as strong as he was the day he attacked us.

How can anyone look at that and NOT conclude that the Bush adminstration's foreign policy - for all intents and purposes, their Iraq war policy - has been an abject failure?

 

[CSM]

I have never suggested that we focused on nothing else... just that we got little else done.

I am saying that we have spent the overwhelming share of energy and attention on Iraq...we have spent five years, nearly a trillion dollars, over 30K dead and wounded, and our enemy is just as strong as he was the day he attacked us.

How can anyone look at that and NOT conclude that the Bush adminstration's foreign policy - for all intents and purposes, their Iraq war policy - has been an abject failure?

Again, I was pointing out that the government is capable of handling multiple issues. We have already debated/discussed Iraq elsewhere.

 

[maineman]

Again, I was pointing out that the government is capable of handling multiple issues. We have already debated/discussed Iraq elsewhere.

I do not question the fact that the government is large enough and organized in such a way as to theoretically be able to handle multiple issues.

I do guess we can agree to disagree about how this current adminstration has exercised that size, organization, and theoretical ability.

 

[trobinett]

I do not question the fact that the government is large enough and organized in such a way as to theoretically be able to handle multiple issues.

I do guess we can agree to disagree about how this current adminstration has exercised that size, organization, and theoretical ability.

So, after all of that, all you can do is "agree to disagree"?

Kinda sounds like the government you so dislike, no?

Inaction, on ANY side of the political forum is still, INACTION, no?

 

[maineman]

So, after all of that, all you can do is "agree to disagree"?

Kinda sounds like the government you so dislike, no?

Inaction, on ANY side of the political forum is still, INACTION, no?

actually, the government I WAS so unhappy with was not frozen by INACTION, it was actively pursing a course of ACTION that I vehemently disagreed with. the current government is frozen by INACTION due, almost exclusively, to the lack of 60 votes in the Senate which stops the government from changing the course of ACTION that I so vehemently disagree with. I dislike the situation, but I do not dislike the democrats who are, at least, trying to stop the chimp from driving the bus over the cliff.


And I know that even if we had the 60 votes to pass vital legislation in the Senate, we are shy of the 67 needed to override a veto by the chimp.... so I must continue to grit my teeth and mourn the deaths of brave americans, and hope like hell that january 2009 comes before we have slipped all the way over the edge into hell.

 

[CSM]

actually, the government I WAS so unhappy with was not frozen by INACTION, it was actively pursing a course of ACTION that I vehemently disagreed with. the current government is frozen by INACTION due, almost exclusively, to the lack of 60 votes in the Senate which stops the government from changing the course of ACTION that I so vehemently disagree with. I dislike the situation, but I do not dislike the democrats who are, at least, trying to stop the chimp from driving the bus over the cliff.


And I know that even if we had the 60 votes to pass vital legislation in the Senate, we are shy of the 67 needed to override a veto by the chimp.... so I must continue to grit my teeth and mourn the deaths of brave americans, and hope like hell that january 2009 comes before we have slipped all the way over the edge into hell.

Don't tell me you are stooping to Bully's level! I thought you were far, far better than that. The "chimp" (as you call him) is still the President of the United States. How the heck can we expect any other country to respect this nation and its leaders when our own citizens don't?

Being retired military, you know darn well that you respect the rank and not the man. If even you can not or do not recognize that, then this country is truly lost for it is the accumulation of small things like this that result in the big things that will be the downfall of this country.

 

[maineman]

Don't tell me you are stooping to Bully's level! I thought you were far, far better than that. The "chimp" (as you call him) is still the President of the United States. How the heck can we expect any other country to respect this nation and its leaders when our own citizens don't?

Being retired military, you know darn well that you respect the rank and not the man. If even you can not or do not recognize that, then this country is truly lost for it is the accumulation of small things like this that result in the big things that will be the downfall of this country.

I DO respect the rank. I do NOT respect the man. I honestly am embarrassed by my president. I want, more than anything, for someone to assume that office that will warrant my respect for HIM or HER, and not merely for the office.