COL Gene COL Gene

Bush is an Embarrassment

▼

Bush is an Embarrassment

from JoeUser Forums
The reception President Bush received today in Canada is a true embarrassment to the United States of America. We have a president who was despised by our closest neighbor and by the people of most of the European nations.

I cannot remember a time when the world had so little regard for our nation. The story is the same no matter were you turn with very few exceptions -- the United States is not trusted and our president is looked upon as an arrogant go it alone leader. It is hard to see how the next four years will benefit the people of our country or mend the huge rifts that exist between the United States and much of the rest of the world.
politics
36,421 views 145 replies
Reply #101 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not an expert about that part of the world. However, the CIA agent ( Mr. Scheur) who is the author of "Imperial Hubris" is. When you look at how extensive the attacks are not only in Iraq but all over the world, I tend to agree with Michael Scheuer, we are not safer from our policy in Iraq or in the Middle- east. We had better hold the elections in Iraq in january 2005, since the security situation later could be even worse. Even if we are able to hold the elections as planned, we may find the new government may not be able to deal with the situation. This will be especially true if some major factions do not take part in the process or the elected leaders can not pull the country together.
Reply #102 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just think that people should look at the views of an Egyptian Muslim who is more of an expert in that part of the world than Mr. Scheur. Just a different perspective.

But if you would have said this to me two years ago I would have agreed with you

The election in Iraq...well I guess we can only just wait and see. If it goes reasonably well, more Muslims will be even more disillusioned with bin Laden.

It was a good decision by the combat commanders to ask for more troops for the elections. I think that will help.
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #103 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required, we might have been able to establish and maintain order in Iraq. Bush knew more then the Generals and went to war with lass than half the force required. We had 500,000 in the first Gulf War.

Mr. Scheur spant 22 years in the CIA working on that part of the world. He was the official in charge of the bin Laden section at the CIA.
Reply #104 from JoeUser Forums Top
Guess not.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #105 from PolMach Forums Top
If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required


Please provide me with the link to when Gen. Franks wanted 300,000-400,000 troops. I got his book and it says the oppsite.

Mr. Scheur spant 22 years in the CIA working on that part of the world. He was the official in charge of the bin Laden section at the CIA.


Spent how long? If he had so good of an understanding, why don't we have Bin Laden? Personnely I think, everybody in that department needed to get fired (like this guy did).

That's My Two Cents
Reply #106 from JoeUser Forums Top
I read Gen. Franks book, American Soldier, and this is what it says "When President Bush focused world attention on the threat of Iraq, Franks seized the moment to implement a bold new vision of joint warfare in planning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rejecting Desert Storm-style massive troop deployment in favor of flexibility and speed, Franks was questioned by the defense establishment -- including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Yet his vision was proven on the ground: Within three weeks, Baghdad had fallen. "

Also Bush sent a one-time Army intelligence operative and CIA agent, Goss to head the CIA. To get rid of more Dinosaurs like Scheur.



Reply #107 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #109 By: Lee1776 - 12/4/2004 12:19:30 AM
If we had gone into Iraq with the 300,000-400,000 troops that Gen Franks and the Fomer Army CoS said were required


Please provide me with the link to when Gen. Franks wanted 300,000-400,000 troops. I got his book and it says the oppsite


COL Gene you mean to tell me all this time you were trying to stuff down my throat that Gen Franks wanted more troops that it was/is a lie?
Reply #108 from JoeUser Forums Top
Lee776 and drmiler Franks troop levels

Read," Plan of Attack", by Bob Woodward. He reviews the planning that Gen Franks did in detail for the Iraq War. There are many references to the troop levels Gen Franks said were needed and that he used in his planning. Just one specific reference is on page 96. He is sighting Op plan 1003 ... After 90 days force levels about 160,000... after 135 days - Phase Four stabilizig and occuping... it takes about 300,000.

At some point, Franks was told he could not have the levels of troops he used in his plan and choose to use a force less than half the size he said was needed to do the job. The 300,000 - 400,000 in the Franks planning is 100% in line with what the the Army CoS said were required. Even more important, time has shown that the troop levels Bush and Rummy decided to use were far too low. Today Franks is faced with the fact that he agreed to force levels that were too low and does not want to admit his erroer in not holding to his plans. We did not have the troop levels to secure the borders, control the populated areas that were bypassed as hot beds of opposition on our march to get rid of Saddam, we did not stop our enemies from using the explosive in the country and we could not protect the pipelines, water and electric. We had almost 500,000 troops in the first Gulf War in a smaller country where the population wanted us to help them. Face it- Bush and Rummy screwed up BIG TIME and Americans are being killed and wounded because of that error! We have lost the support of the Iraq population and they look at us is an occupying force that they want to leave. The very best thing is to have the new government, after the January elections, ask us to leave. Then we can get out and save some face. If a civil war results, we can say, well we were asked to leave by the elected government of Iraq. We had no choice.
Reply #109 from PolMach Forums Top
I read Gen. Franks book, American Soldier, and this is what it says "When President Bush focused world attention on the threat of Iraq, Franks seized the moment to implement a bold new vision of joint warfare in planning Operation Iraqi Freedom. Rejecting Desert Storm-style massive troop deployment in favor of flexibility and speed, Franks was questioned by the defense establishment -- including Secretary of State Colin Powell. Yet his vision was proven on the ground: Within three weeks, Baghdad had fallen. "


And yet they could not protect anything that they held. Looting, lawlessness in the streets, kidnapping for both politcal and monetary reasons, lack of basic necessities like power, water, medical supplies and foodstuffs were the result. The Bush administration looked at this in the short sighted comparison of the Americans liberating France on D-day. There's a difference, Eisenhower kept France running after it was taken over, and Iraq had not been conquered by a foreign power as France had.
Reply #110 from JoeUser Forums Top
The truth is the United states did not have a military force, Active and reserve/guard that could field an army large enough to do the job. Bush knew he could not get the support to provide the troop levels in the Franks planning or as recommended by the Army CoS. So he dug down into his vast military experience, gained by his four years as a Air National Guard LT and gave us his "bold vision" which has proven to be a drastic error which neither Bush or Rummy will ever acknowledge! To date this war has cost the United States about 1,300 dead, 10,000 combat and 15,000 non combat injuries and about $200 billion and counting. All this to have estabished a shooting gallery for our enemies to use aginst our troops. There is no assurance that with all that investment we will not end up with a country that is as much of a danger to America and the West as the old Iraq. Great leadership, Mr. Bush!
Reply #111 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #112 By: COL Gene - 12/4/2004 8:37:30 AM
Lee776 and drmiler Franks troop levels

Read," Plan of Attack", by Bob Woodward. He reviews the planning that Gen Franks did in detail for the Iraq War. There are many references to the troop levels Gen Franks said were needed and that he used in his planning. Just one specific reference is on page 96. He is sighting Op plan 1003 ... After 90 days force levels about 160,000... after 135 days - Phase Four stabilizig and occuping... it takes about 300,000.


And just why, should we read someone elses book? Don't you think that Franks himself would be the better person to put on paper what was in his own head? And just where did Bob Woodward get his information? If he got it frrom Franks himself, then someone is lying! And I don't believe Franks is the one doing the lying.
Reply #112 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

You Bushies are all the same. Whenever a source is not supportive to Bush they are wrong. Woodward interviewed Franks and the data is a detailed time line of the planning for the Iraq War. Yes Franks did plan on 300,000 troops and Bush used his great military experience to create the mess we are in in Iraq by not allowing the people with the military experience to do their job . I guess the Army CoS does not know what he is doing. Well just look at Iraq. We are not in control by any means. We did not control the borders, the amo dumps, the populated areas or the pipelines. We can not even prevent attacks just outside the Green Zone. Bush is a strong leader going in the wrong direction. Saddam was also a strong leader and look at what he did.
Reply #113 from PolMach Forums Top
I love it. Can you imagine him saying that??????? I love the "please" part.


Granted, we are different people, but *I* would say it. Maybe a bit more tactfully, but I, as a politican wouldn't want to be an idiot in front of the American people.

As for the rest of it, our own house is divided, what the hell do we need war for?
Reply #114 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #116 By: COL Gene - 12/4/2004 4:56:27 PM
drmiler

You Bushies are all the same. Whenever a source is not supportive to Bush they are wrong. Woodward interviewed Franks and the data is a detailed time line of the planning for the Iraq War. Yes Franks did plan on 300,000 troops and Bush used his great military experience to create the mess we are in in Iraq by not allowing the people with the military experience to do their job .


And you anti-bushies are all the same too. When something does not support your point of view, you have a tendency to ignore it. You never addressed the point I was trying to make! Woodward is saying one thing and Franks is saying another in *his* own book. I'm not the one saying he's wrong. Gen Franks is the one saying Wooward's wrong. Get a grip.
Reply #115 from JoeUser Forums Top
The inability for us to control Iraq shows who was correct. Franks folded his tent even though his planning provided for 300,000. He is now faced with the fact that he was wrong to go ahead with less than half the force levels he planned for. If Gen Franks had the guts that the Army CoS had, he would have told Bush he needed the larger number troops to do the job. Bush has NO IDEA WHAT IT TAKES! Look at the first Gulf War. We had almost 500,000 troops and the country was smaller and the population wanted us to liberate them. If you believe we are in control in Iraq you are living in a dream world.
Reply #116 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #119 By: COL Gene - 12/4/2004 6:54:26 PM
The inability for us to control Iraq shows who was correct. Franks folded his tent even though his planning provided for 300,000. He is now faced with the fact that he was wrong to go ahead with less than half the force levels he planned for. If Gen Franks had the guts that the Army CoS had, he would have told Bush he needed the larger number troops to do the job. Bush has NO IDEA WHAT IT TAKES! Look at the first Gulf War. We had almost 500,000 troops and the country was smaller and the population wanted us to liberate them. If you believe we are in control in Iraq you are living in a dream world.


Do you doubt that we have the ability to destroy the country if we wanted to?

The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control
Reply #117 from JoeUser Forums Top

The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control


and there ya have it folks.  my dad can kick your dads ass proving might does make right rather than the reverse.

Reply #118 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think it's sad that so many of you are locked into the mindset that we should never evaluate how other nations feel about American policies. It would be one thing if this were Lichtenstein or someplace like that, but America has an enormous influence on the other nations. As the most powerful nation and the global police, I think it's fair to say so. I respect the idea that we shouldn't let others make our decisions for us and we should look to our interests as well, but it becomes a problem when we hardly consider them.

I almost cried when I watched a news special on Bush and Kerry and their backgrounds and I heard Bush say something about making decisions based on what he felt was right in his gut and sticking to them, no matter what anyone else thought. There is a definite distinction between looking at our own interests and completely ignoring the interests of other nations, and I think Bush crossed the line.

There definitely were times when other nations like the US. There's probably a reason why they all started hating us during Bush's reign.
Reply #119 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #121 By: kingbee - 12/4/2004 10:10:56 PM
The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control




and there ya have it folks. my dad can kick your dads ass proving might does make right rather than the reverse.


What a clown. Did you not reconize the quote? It's from literature and way before our time.
Reply #120 from JoeUser Forums Top
What a clown. Did you not reconize the quote? It's from literature and way before our time.


What literature? When?

As for the relevance of it, I'd say it's a completely outdated mindset. We don't just go in and crush other countries just to show we can "control" them. That's lunacy. Kind of reminiscent of Ghengis Khan and the like. Is that what we want to show the world? That we can crush them, destroy them, bomb them back into the stone age, just so they know we ultimately can "control" them? That's barbaric. Additionally, that seems so contrary to the argument that the arms race is necessary to act as a deterent, so another country won't want to nuke us. There may be some argument made for that. But, so we can "control" them. Get a grip!
Reply #121 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's from literature and way before our time


jeez ya mean i was ignorantly wallowing in my own ignorance again?  just to show my heart's in the right place ill troll myself. 

Reply #122 from PolMach Forums Top

dabe: what's so crazy about the concept of a country wanting to control other countries? Are you so naive as to think this can never happen? You don't think that American not only does, but needs to control other counties? Look around you. Control games happen at ever level of society, it has another name and it's called politics. Parents need to control there children, towns need to control there citizens, countries need to be in control of all of it. Life is one big power struggle.

If you can't even concieve that your county would exercise its power for the sake of exercising its muscle and that it doesn't desire to control it's own populace and it's surrounding neighbors then your quite dillusional and your country will be able to do what ever it wants without being questioned because its 'unconcievable'. You certain believe that you have 'the way' for the Iraqis to control themselves right? Democracy. And in that way you are definitely trying to control there very future.

Your right about one thing dabe, it is Barbaric.
Reply #123 from JoeUser Forums Top
dabe: what's so crazy about the concept of a country wanting to control other countries? Are you so naive as to think this can never happen?


Your right about one thing dabe, it is Barbaric.


No, mismos, I'm not naive. But think of the quote from drmiler
The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control
It's just this side of adolescent ranting. And, although we do control certain aspects of other countries, I would surely like to think that we do it through diplomacy whenever possible. Bombing the shit out of another country "just because we can" will never cut it. Control through fear and intimidation is something I will always fight against. Democracy at the end of a gun is doomed to almost certain failure. And, bombing another country to control them is barbaric.

I dunno. Call me a romantic. Idealistic, even. But, I am not naive.
Reply #124 from JoeUser Forums Top
The ability to destroy something is the ultimate form of control




and there ya have it folks. my dad can kick your dads ass proving might does make right rather than the reverse.


What a clown. Did you not reconize the quote? It's from literature and way before our time.


What's the quote from? Is it from Clausewitz, Hobbes, Lu-Tze or someone else entirely? I don't recall ever hearing it before. I disagree entirely with the concept behind it (by destroying you remove your control over something; maintaining fear is much less efficient as a means of control than love or hate of the other) but I'd be interested to see the philosophical arguments behind such a ludicrous statement.
Reply #125 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Did anyone actually read the quote? The 'ability' to destroy something ..., not 'destroying' something. That is exactly what existed during the cold war.

There is an assumption being made that someone who has the ability to destroy something is prone to do so. Think of yourselves for a moment. You have the ability to destroy many things. Are 'you' prone to do so?