I had a better way than George Bush

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by jeffperkinstech, Apr 6, 2004.

  1. jeffperkinstech
    Online

    jeffperkinstech Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I thought it would have been much better if the Bush Administration would have left Saddam alone and pretended to have forgotten about him after the 9\11 attacks. Go after Afganistan and all other places Al-Queda operates (which George Bush blatently failed to do, and any report to the contrary is an out and out lie) and attack them sparadically through-out the world. This would have made Iraq a haven for surviving and fleeing Al-Queda operatives. We could have even given certain 'escape routes' to Al-Queda cells we engage in foreign countries. After a time, due to the principle of 'Terror takes the path of least resistance', there would have been a build up of the mass majority of Al-Queda in Iraq, then we could have gone to the UN and pointed out to them that a large mass of Al-Queda exsists in Iraq and that Saddam is harboring them. After that, it is of knowledgeable, and wise opinion that many of the other counties that rejected to help burden the risk and cost of the Iraq war would have done so in that instance. And it would have been a much more decisive, and devistating blow to our enemies still at large.
     
  2. clumzgirl
    Offline

    clumzgirl Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Messages:
    223
    Thanks Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    ohio
    Ratings:
    +20
    You're pissin' into the wind, my friend. What's done is done. The relevant question is, what do we do now?

    (And welcome to the forum!)
     
  3. jeffperkinstech
    Online

    jeffperkinstech Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Oh, I am not suggesting that we can use this idea to turn back time and make things right. I do not indulge in delusions of Science Fiction (but the movies can be fun!). However, it is a relavent point today that, I, a holder of the prestigous GED certificate, could put forth a more tacticlly and strageically sound plan. This comes down to expectations of leadership. If the leadership demonstrated by this Administration is to your satisfaction, I would suggest your standards are much too low. Forgive the abruptness.
     
  4. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    Jeff, I got your PM. Even as exrensive as my own military qualifications tend to indicate, I don't and have never called mission endeavors. Your ideology may be sound, it would take multitudes of feedback, however, to convince me of it.

    I wasn't born a Democrat. I became one after experiencing the worst screwings of my life by the lying and otherwise secretive Republicans. But I won't belabour that subject. Go for what you know, feel, think and are compelled, Jeff. It's a personal life decision and it's your own. Can you dig it?
     
  5. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    What did I tell you a little earlier, Sir Evil? We go in circles, don't we? Sure the Dems can be corrupt and undeserving of their offices. I find it much more prevalent amongst Republicans, however, and I can qualify through experience a reasonable explanation of my propensity to believe those facts. Again, I'll spare you the details but only admonish you to pay attention to the information that is readily available to you from a variety of sources. Like sex, variety is the spice of life.
     
  6. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Don't quite your day job.
     
  7. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    I would imagine that terrorists would have tended to melt into Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Kashmir, Lebanon, and bordering territory that used to be part of the USSR more readily than they would have into Iraq.

    Instead, by invading Iraq, we have made many of them come to us, to fight on our terms, against our military.

    There is no reason to assume ignoring Iraq would have significantly increased the concentration of terrorist elements in that country. Rather, had we ignored Iraq and allowed Saddam to proceed unfettered with the chemical/biological weapons programs he was pursuing, it is likely that something very dangerous would have eventually ended up in the hands of one of the several terrorist organizations Saddam had dealings with.

    It was better to deal with Iraq before it became an imminent threat.
     
  8. preemptingyou03
    Offline

    preemptingyou03 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    369
    Thanks Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +4
    What is imminent anymore? Liberals have this knack for wanting us to sit on our hands until our enemies are stronger and more capable or hurting us. They have our hands tied.

    Nobody knows what imminent is in the age of terrorism. Bush has said if we wait for our enemies to fully materialize, we will have waited too long.

    Dems don't understand that Saddam, in more ways than one, wanted to harm us. We must take it seriously!

    The biggest BS arguements ever are "Saddam wasn't a terrorist" and "we should have concentrated on Osama."

    Concentrated how? The media? Just because the media stopped talking about him doesn't mean we weren't concentrating on him? You can't invade a MAN.

    I just can't stand the passive logic.
     
  9. Psychoblues
    Offline

    Psychoblues Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,701
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    North Missisippi
    Ratings:
    +143
    And obviously you don't underSTAND strategy. Our troops are saved and lost according to brilliant and faulty "strategy". I'd suggest you stay in a game that you understand.
     
  10. jeffperkinstech
    Online

    jeffperkinstech Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Those would be valid points if there wern't these pesky little things that roadblock the theory of terrorists glombing together in countries like former USSR providences, Iran, and Pakistan. The USSR has already been dealing with the terrorist threat from mainly Chechniya and have even connected Al-Queda involvment in some of the attacks suffered by them. There would be no more 'soft spots' for more Al-Queda than there already are today, in fact I could see where, if my stratagy was employeed, that there would be fewer because this is one of the places that we could have sent men and matirials to assist the Russian Gov. of eradicating the terrorist threat. And before you say it, if you believe that Vladimier Putin would not have accepted US help in this, to achieve a shared goal, then you do not understand the new Ruaain way or policy toward our country. They don't want us interfering with internal matters, unless of course, there are gains to be had. And inthis endeavour there ARE gains to be had. Pakistan? Please...after 9/11 they were as obidient as dogs to our wishes and for good reason. A nuclear power that already has another nuclear powered enemy at thier border, and in desparte need of powerful friends after their successful nuclear weapons program and tests. They did, and still do, everything they can to assist us. Even if they may have contributed to the terrorist problem before 9/11, anyone who watches and knows can tell you they don't even try to skate off with any shinanigains now and are, probably the most powerful ally we have, in this endevour. Iran? OK, certainly not as cooperative and also a contributer to terrorisim before 9/11, but believe me. All recon data shows that suspected terrorist camps have been disbanded and they REALLY DO NOT want to engage the US military and have done, in an unbiased perspective, a MASTERFUL diplomatic job of keeping us somewhat appeased, while not giving us so much as to really ire thier Islamic breathren. Now you have a little something there, when you say that Al-Queda may have gone to Syria, Jordan or Lebanon. However, those countries are very small and under constant satelite suveylence (not sure how to spell that one...help?). These are also countries scared of the US might and would not want to overtly provoke us. I could see where temporary safe heaven would have been provided until we came out publically and said that we know that they are harboring terrorists and they have until said dealdline to hand them over or rebuke them all-together. Point being, I KNOW my plan would have worked. It even fits into Saddams psycology of being this mighty adversay to the US, that he would have had no qualms about taking in terrorists at this time, and the longer we would have let him the more his ego would have taken control. This could have been a clean sweep program but instead we have faulty leadership from manufactured men.
    Oh and WMD's? If you still believe that Iraq has or had any since '90 then I would propose to you that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy all really do exist! C'MON! The final word on wether Saddam had WMD's or not came down (or more aptly didn't) when we entered Bagdad and they were not used upon us. If he had them then he would have used them. The ONLY thing the documents tell us about thier so called WMD's is that Saddam did want to have them again, but the people put in charge of doing so were ripping him off of millions! They would ask for money and be paid and then submit false reports and fake demonstrations. What a laugh. What is NOT a laugh, however, is my fear that Bush is going to pull out WMD's out of his magic hat sometime durning this election. Remember that big $32B package for Iraq that was passed? $100 million of that was set aside for the search for wepons of mass destruction. That is enough money to MANUFACTURE the evidence your looking for if one wanted to do so. And after the 2000 election, I KNOW that George Bush is the type of guy to do something like that. Not saying that is definately going to happen...but if it does...I told you so!
    Oh and one last point. People that sit there and say things like the Liberal mind is weak and soft and the Conservative mind is tough and just and forceful doesn't know crap about history, denies reality and is suckered by most marketing machines you could ever devise. Just because Republicains decided to don big belt buckles and cowboy boots and they talk like simpletons and listen to country music (at least in public) does NOT mean they are ANYTHING LIKE YOU! In fact, I can gaurentee that most of them DON'T EVEN LIKE YOU AND PEOPLE WHO ACT LIKE THAT! It's a CON! The stongest leadership that this country has known in the last century, was from 2 Democrats (FDR who went to war dispite a popular Republican policy of Isolationism, and whos predicessor upon death dropped the bomb. Yeah, real soft there)(The other was JFK who stood his ground and risked us all in a neuclear war gambit against Russia over missiles in Cuba. Again, I can see how one might percieve that as weak. *shakes head*) the other 2 being Republicans (Teddy Rosevelt, who was the greatest Democrat the Republican party ever had and one of our best leaders EVER) (The other being Regan, who was a straightout Republican, but he stuck to his guns and, more or less, out spent the USSR into collaspe...but with one mistake...he could have ended the neuclear threat earlier, on his watch, but was too strong armed about things and messed it up. It happened anyway but it happened on George Bush Sr.'s watch)
    Point being...don't be a slave monkey to cheap a cheap image. ACTIONS NOT WORDS AND ATTIRE WILL LEAD YOU TO THE TRUTH!
     

Share This Page