Adam Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 My wife used to work in the same office building as Rummy; ran into him in the elevator all the time. The guy is absolutely obsessed with justifying the invasion of Iraq. His comments about the Iraqis attacking our planes which were enforcing the UN sanctions for years, was new to me. Maybe I had been living under a rock (My occupation does that to me sometimes), but that was the first I had heard of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 His comments about the Iraqis attacking our planes which were enforcing the UN sanctions for years, was new to me. Maybe I had been living under a rock (My occupation does that to me sometimes), but that was the first I had heard of that. Is that sarcasm? Because if you hadn't heard that, you pretty much were living under a rock. There were plenty of altercations in the no-fly zone (lotsa lighting up Coalition aircraft with tracking radar, lots of killing said radars and associated SAMs), and at least one significant bombing campaign against Iraq (Desert Fox, I believe). It's one of the better justifications for invading Iraq that the Bush administration never gave - lancing that weeping boil of a problem area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 Is that sarcasm? Because if you hadn't heard that, you pretty much were living under a rock. There were plenty of altercations in the no-fly zone (lotsa lighting up Coalition aircraft with tracking radar, lots of killing said radars and associated SAMs), and at least one significant bombing campaign against Iraq (Desert Fox, I believe). It's one of the better justifications for invading Iraq that the Bush administration never gave - lancing that weeping boil of a problem area. Not sarcastic at all- I am able to follow things a lot more now, but in my line of work, you pretty much go all day and never know when you can get a call at night for something (pretty stupid, when you consider the un-importance of what I do). One of the many reasons I bought my XM radio, which helps me follow the news now. This justification definitely should have been given a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Getting rid of that monster Saddam who was sitting upon an ocean of wealth was a good idea. No one can really seriously argue against that idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 1, 2012 Author Share Posted May 1, 2012 Getting rid of that monster Saddam who was sitting upon an ocean of wealth was a good idea. No one can really seriously argue against that idea Ok, but what is your opinion on how things were handled after his removal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Ok, but what is your opinion on how things were handled after his removal? Terribly, but not sure it could have gone any better. The whole thing was a rush job, but as I look back on it, it's probably the only way they could have done it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Terribly, but not sure it could have gone any better. The whole thing was a rush job, but as I look back on it, it's probably the only way they could have done it Seriously? You think "After we remove Saddam, they'll greet us with open arms, and everyone will be friends, yay!" was the best possible plan? Will your idiocy ever plateau? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Seriously? You think "After we remove Saddam, they'll greet us with open arms, and everyone will be friends, yay!" was the best possible plan? Will your idiocy ever plateau? Ha ha, you really think that was the actual plan? Watch what they did, not what they said. Think a little dumbo. You think if they said they needed more troops, years of occupation and a multiple national effort that there ever would have been a war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Ha ha, you really think that was the actual plan? Watch what they did, not what they said. Think a little dumbo. You think if they said they needed more troops, years of occupation and a multiple national effort that there ever would have been a war? Inasmuch as there was any sort of plan, that was pretty much it. There is a ton - literally, probably several tons - of documentary evidence that the administration fully believe that would welcome American troops "with open arms", as "liberators" or "saviors", and a post-war security plan was never even discussed. You could start with Hashim, Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq, which will provide you with a half-dozen other excellent sources in the footnotes and bibliography. If you can put your coloring books aside long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Inasmuch as there was any sort of plan, that was pretty much it. There is a ton - literally, probably several tons - of documentary evidence that the administration fully believe that would welcome American troops "with open arms", as "liberators" or "saviors", and a post-war security plan was never even discussed. You could start with Hashim, Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency in Iraq, which will provide you with a half-dozen other excellent sources in the footnotes and bibliography. If you can put your coloring books aside long enough. You are an idiot. Watch Cheneys 1994--google it--interview he knew it would be a quagmire. Don't be so dumb, they may have convinced a lot of fools that we would be welcomed as liberators, but they didn't believe it themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 That explains a lot about the current WH occupant. Dennis Miller once cleverly commented that while Bush was not the smartest guy, he surrounded himself with smart people like a hole surrounds itself with a donut. You could argue Obama surrounds himself with smart people like a hole surrounds itself with more holes. IMO it's the exact opposite. We can debate the internal decision making of the Bush administration all day and what Rummy or specific people "really thought" but the general consensus from what I've seen is that Bush's advisers delivered him one blunder after another in terms of advice. Bush will NEVER turn into an openly bitter and vindictive person b/c in all honesty I do believe he is above that personally but as far as I'm aware based on the things I've watched/read since he left office...the people he surrounded himself with failed miserably. DC Tom is correct here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 You are an idiot. Watch Cheneys 1994--google it--interview he knew it would be a quagmire. Don't be so dumb, they may have convinced a lot of fools that we would be welcomed as liberators, but they didn't believe it themselves. Davey, are you confusing different wars, or are you saying the that the one from this century was a continuation of Desert Storm? IMO it's the exact opposite. We can debate the internal decision making of the Bush administration all day and what Rummy or specific people "really thought" but the general consensus from what I've seen is that Bush's advisers delivered him one blunder after another in terms of advice. Bush will NEVER turn into an openly bitter and vindictive person b/c in all honesty I do believe he is above that personally but as far as I'm aware based on the things I've watched/read since he left office...the people he surrounded himself with failed miserably. DC Tom is correct here. Wow. How would you compare the people Bush surrounded himself with the people Obama surrounded himself with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Wow. How would you compare the people Bush surrounded himself with the people Obama surrounded himself with? In terms of foreign policy I feel Obama has better people working for him. I also feel Hilary has done an excellent job (though I realize this is a right wing board). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 In terms of foreign policy I feel Obama has better people working for him. I also feel Hilary has done an excellent job (though I realize this is a right wing board). She's the only grown up in the entire administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) In terms of foreign policy I feel Obama has better people working for him. I also feel Hilary has done an excellent job (though I realize this is a right wing board). Here's a sampling. Too bad they didn't include Van Jones, the avowed Communist. http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/ Out of curiosity, what has Hillary done? Edited May 2, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 You are an idiot. Watch Cheneys 1994--google it--interview he knew it would be a quagmire. Don't be so dumb, they may have convinced a lot of fools that we would be welcomed as liberators, but they didn't believe it themselves. Oh, so what Cheney said in 1994 amounts to an occupation plan in 2003? Seriously, just shut up already. I gave you one resource that will lead you to a half-dozen others that will explain the lack of planning for the occupation. Go read them and get back to us when you have the merest glimmer of a hint of what you're talking about. Davey, are you confusing different wars, or are you saying the that the one from this century was a continuation of Desert Storm? By any remotely rational way of thinking, it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Oh, so what Cheney said in 1994 amounts to an occupation plan in 2003? Seriously, just shut up already. I gave you one resource that will lead you to a half-dozen others that will explain the lack of planning for the occupation. Go read them and get back to us when you have the merest glimmer of a hint of what you're talking about. By any remotely rational way of thinking, it was. Dammit! Quit stinking up my bait! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 In terms of foreign policy I feel Obama has better people working for him. I also feel Hilary has done an excellent job (though I realize this is a right wing board). I honestly don't know how anyone comes to that conclusion. Most any foreign policy success you can name for this administration (and there are damned few) are extensions of the policies of Bush's second term. But most of the foreign policy, such as it exists, is easily as bad as Bush's first-term foreign policy idiocy - or worse, Clinton's. And while Hilary hasn't been an utter disaster...I can't name a single thing she's done except give Vlad Putin a reset button. But we'll see how she does in China... Dammit! Quit stinking up my bait! Don't worry about it. DiN's too stupid to notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Hillary has provided great leadership for the a global effort to combat hunger issues over time (as opposed to just combating critical shortages) and women's issues. She's been instrumental in our role in responding to, and operating amongst, the unprecedented turmoil in the middle east in a way that is not an idiotic knee-jerk reaction. I'm curious to here specifics on what gripes you have with this administrations foreign policy DC Tom. And also what extensions of Bush policy you feel account for Obama's "damned few" foreign policy victories. (not saying there aren't any btw just would like to here the ones you are referring to) Also, Hillary is largely responsible for us maintaining order (to the extent we have) in Afghanistan as she has been one of the foremost leaders within the administration supporting our continued active involvement there. I'm sure this point will get a reaction but IMO it could be much worse. Also, as secretary of state I've read that many foreign leaders have found her easier to work with given her first hand experience as a high level elected official...something others in her position have not experienced. However the basic short of it is I don't feel foreign policy has been a shortfall of Obama's run as president, but rather a solid aspect to his reign. And much of that is due to her competence. Most of you probably disagree...I'd like to here why (hell maybe you'll swing me). Edited May 2, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Hillary has provided great leadership for the a global effort to combat hunger issues over time (as opposed to just combating critical shortages) and women's issues. She's been instrumental in our role in responding to, and operating amongst, the unprecedented turmoil in the middle east in a way that is not an idiotic knee-jerk reaction. I'm curious to here specifics on what gripes you have with this administrations foreign policy DC Tom. And also what extensions of Bush policy you feel account for Obama's "damned few" foreign policy victories. (not saying there aren't any btw just would like to here the ones you are referring to) Also, Hillary is largely responsible for us maintaining order (to the extent we have) in Afghanistan as she has been one of the foremost leaders within the administration supporting our continued active involvement there. I'm sure this point will get a reaction but IMO it could be much worse. Also, as secretary of state I've read that many foreign leaders have found her easier to work with given her first hand experience as a high level elected official...something others in her position have not experienced. However the basic short of it is I don't feel foreign policy has been a shortfall of Obama's run as president, but rather a solid aspect to his reign. And much of that is due to her competence. Most of you probably disagree...I'd like to here why (hell maybe you'll swing me). I hope you want to "hear" why. Many foreign leaders have found her easier to work with? When was she a high level official before her short stint in the senate as a carpetbagger? Regardless, she would have been better than the farce you guys voted in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts