By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Palin: "Bush Doctrine? Whaat?"

akuma587 on 13 September 2008
MrBubbles said:
the fact that they werent his fault isnt beside the point. you tried to make him look like an incompetent pilot when that wasnt the case at all. he isnt responsible for mechanical failures.
and the swiftboat commercial wasnt orchestrated by the republican party.

Even though the lawyer representing the Swift Boat Veterans was the same one who represented the Bush campaign, Benjamin Ginsberg.  He resigned after this connection was revealed.

Kenneth Cordier, a man who served on a veterans' advisory committee for the Bush campaign APPEARED in one of the commercials.  He distanced himself from the campaign once this was revealed as well.

One of the initial financial supporters of the group was a close friend of Karl Rove's, Bush's right-hand man.

This kind of politics is quintessential Karl Rove, letting someone else do your dirty work.  That's how he got Bush elected as governor in Texas, by spreading rumors that Ann Richards was employing lesbians and that she might be a lesbian herself.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
MrBubbles on 13 September 2008
akuma587 said:
MrBubbles said:
the situations arent anything alike. the US had the means to properly secure the country quite easily. they didnt.

Explain.  How could they have done it easily?  And what is your definition of securing a country?

 

 

here are 2 fairly simple failures that caused a lot of uneccessary problems.   the failure to secure weapon storages.  the disbanding of the iraqi army.



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

whatever on 13 September 2008
MrBubbles said:
whatever said:
MrBubbles said:
the fact that they werent his fault isnt beside the point. you tried to make him look like an incompetent pilot when that wasnt the case at all. he isnt responsible for mechanical failures.
and the swiftboat commercial wasnt orchestrated by the republican party.

You can believe that if you want.

Your still making my point.  The republicans would have been all over this by now, the democrats won't touch it.

Sorry Sqrl, last post from me on this.

 

 

with all the rediculous stuff about mccain and palin floating around because of democrats its a little hard to paint them as saints, dont you think?

I never said anything about them being saints, just that they won't go after McCain's service records.  You can't be a saint and get into politics, period.  But I'd like to see what these ridiculous claims are that you speaks of.  Have any links?

 



akuma587 on 13 September 2008
MrBubbles said:
akuma587 said:
MrBubbles said:
the situations arent anything alike. the US had the means to properly secure the country quite easily. they didnt.

Explain.  How could they have done it easily?  And what is your definition of securing a country?

 

 

here are 2 fairly simple failures that caused a lot of uneccessary problems.   the failure to secure weapon storages.  the disbanding of the iraqi army.

Would it have been a good idea to keep an army together who formerly served the person who you came there specifically to take out of power?  That could be a pretty risky move, as they may not exactly even want to work with the invading army or respect their authority.  There are probably as many good reasons for doing it as bad ones.

Securing weapon storages is a good idea, but the way terrorists work they could make a bomb out of what is in my kitchen.  It doesn't require much money or supplies to be an effective terrorist.  They are dangerous because they are religious extremists (even more dangerous than the religious extremists in our country if you can believe that!).

It is very hard to fight against someone who is willing to die for what they believe in, especially if they strap a bomb to their chest.  That is my point.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

MrBubbles on 13 September 2008
akuma587 said:

Would it have been a good idea to keep an army together who formerly served the person who you came there specifically to take out of power?  That could be a pretty risky move, as they may not exactly even want to work with the invading army or respect their authority.  There are probably as many good reasons for doing it as bad ones.

 

they had iraqi commanders seeking out the US to work them.   

the US chose to disband the army leaving a couple hundred thousand well trained soldiers with nothing to do, no money, and plenty of weapons lying around.

 

sound like a good idea to you?



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 13 September 2008
akuma587 said:
MrBubbles said:
akuma587 said:
MrBubbles said:
the situations arent anything alike. the US had the means to properly secure the country quite easily. they didnt.

Explain.  How could they have done it easily?  And what is your definition of securing a country?

 

 

here are 2 fairly simple failures that caused a lot of uneccessary problems.   the failure to secure weapon storages.  the disbanding of the iraqi army.

Would it have been a good idea to keep an army together who formerly served the person who you came there specifically to take out of power?  That could be a pretty risky move, as they may not exactly even want to work with the invading army or respect their authority.  There are probably as many good reasons for doing it as bad ones.

Securing weapon storages is a good idea, but the way terrorists work they could make a bomb out of what is in my kitchen.  It doesn't require much money or supplies to be an effective terrorist.  They are dangerous because they are religious extremists (even more dangerous than the religious extremists in our country if you can believe that!).

It is very hard to fight against someone who is willing to die for what they believe in, especially if they strap a bomb to their chest.  That is my point.

 

No there really wasn't.  A very small part of the army were hardline bathists.  The rest were in the army beause it was basically the only way to make any money.  That was a big part of the insurgency early on.  Just angry out of work people.

If they would of been kept on the payroll rather then skyrocketing unemployment the whole thing would of ran more smoothly.  We probably would of been out already since they would of already had some decent well trained troops that could of faught the insurgents... that would be short on well trained troops.

There aren't many "Bomb to your chest!" terrorists over in iraq.  Outside of the ones that are being imported by Iran in the like... and they are a very small part of the insurgency... a part that will probably leave once iraq is stable enough for us to pull out.  Leaving the Iraqis with only the hardline bathists more or less since the main Shia and Shite parties have combined.

 

 



akuma587 on 13 September 2008
MrBubbles said:

 

they had iraqi commanders seeking out the US to work them.   

the US chose to disband the army leaving a couple hundred thousand well trained soldiers with nothing to do, no money, and plenty of weapons lying around.

 

sound like a good idea to you?

Would leaving weapons in the hands of an army who has always supported the leader you just came in and dethroned without anyone's permission be a better idea?  I am just saying that neither decision is a very attractive one, and the proposed alternative has just as many risks if not more tied into it.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

akuma587 on 13 September 2008
Kasz216 said:

No there really wasn't.  A very small part of the army were hardline bathists.  The rest were in the army beause it was basically the only way to make any money.  That was a big part of the insurgency early on.  Just angry out of work people.

If they would of been kept on the payroll rather then skyrocketing unemployment the whole thing would of ran more smoothly.  We probably would of been out already since they would of already had some decent well trained troops that could of faught the insurgents... that would be short on well trained troops.

 

Valid point that actually has fleshed out logic behind it, so I am willing to accept it. 

I think the deeper problem lies in the U.S. military's cavalier attitude towards the rights of foreign nations and their citizens in addition to sharing power with them.  Disbanding the Iraqi army as well as the disputes with and condescending attitude towards the current Iraqi security forces are great examples.

It has gotten a bit better recently, but the recent debate while renewing the U.S. standing forces agreement with the Iraqi government is a perfect example of how it has not gone away, as we were very unwilling to give them any of the concessions they asked for.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Lem_Nx on 13 September 2008
Parokki said:
It wasn't really clear to me either what he was referring to. Besides, Bush has screwed up pretty much every imaginable aspect of government over the past few several years. In situations like this, one really should specify at least "the Bush doctrine on pre-emptive strike". =P

 

What about the United States Postal Service?



About time I remember my password...

Kasz216 on 13 September 2008
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:

No there really wasn't.  A very small part of the army were hardline bathists.  The rest were in the army beause it was basically the only way to make any money.  That was a big part of the insurgency early on.  Just angry out of work people.

If they would of been kept on the payroll rather then skyrocketing unemployment the whole thing would of ran more smoothly.  We probably would of been out already since they would of already had some decent well trained troops that could of faught the insurgents... that would be short on well trained troops.

 

Valid point that actually has fleshed out logic behind it, so I am willing to accept it. 

I think the deeper problem lies in the U.S. military's cavalier attitude towards the rights of foreign nations and their citizens in addition to sharing power with them.  Disbanding the Iraqi army as well as the disputes with and condescending attitude towards the current Iraqi security forces are great examples.

It has gotten a bit better recently, but the recent debate while renewing the U.S. standing forces agreement with the Iraqi government is a perfect example of how it has not gone away, as we were very unwilling to give them any of the concessions they asked for.

 

To me it's the opposite.  Obama is the one being condescending.  His position is that we aren't out of Iraq because Iraq is procrastinating because we don't have a pull out date.  It wasn't condescending the Iraqi security forces either.  They just weren't ready becaush Bush stupidly disbanded the army.  They tried many times to hand over stuff to the security forces but it didn't work because they had to train these people longer then they expected.  They failed constantly at what they were supposed to do... and why not they were fighting people who had been in the army for a long time.

There is something you miss too... a majority of Iraqi's were for the US invading before the invasion.  It was just Bush's complete disaster of an invasion that caused the problem.

I saw a fun documentry on that once about an Iraqi guy who goes around asking people why the US invaded Iraq.  It was pretty biased but even he admitted most Iraqis thought the US invasion would be a good thing.  It's funny to see some people who have no clue why they invaded though, some people have some silly answers.

It's just Bush's idocy in only protecting things that were important to US interests during the invasion is what screwed everything up and made the Iraqi's standard of living decrease instead of increase.   Had there been a better person in control the Rumsfeld Iraq would of been in great shape... and the whole "Greeted as liberators" thing would of lasted more then the week or so it lasted.