What do you think of our current President?

[renrich]

FB and PB, I know I am peeing into the wind as I am not going to change your mind. However, just for future reference, I am going to complete this dialogue by saying the following: First, two axioms are always true. "Hindsight is twenty twenty." "The enemy always gets a vote." You and your left wing buddies always amuse me by saying Bush is to blame for not sending enough troops to Iraq. Firstly, General Franks thought he had enough troops to defeat the Iraqui army and depose Saddam. If you recall, after the initial attacks the coalition troops paused for a few days and the clamor went up, "not enough troops." then the coalition started moving again and it was all over for Saddam so there were plenty of troops for the initial mission. Then the insurrection began and we hear the clamor from the naysayers, "not enough troops." Well, how many troops were enough? I don't know and I doubt if you do and I damn sure know that most of Bush's critics haven't a clue. When conquering an Arab country the size of Iraq and not knowing exactly how the populace is going to react and what the neighboring countries are going to do, there are a lot of question marks which don't get answered until it is all over. Bush and Blair's crystal ball was a little cloudy in that area and "The enemy get's a vote." Most battle plans are only good until the first shot is fired. An example: When the Allies invaded Italy in 1943, they thought the Italians would be able to feed themselves just like they always had. Wrong, the Germans destroyed and stole everything as they retreated and the Italian civilians damn near starved to death (many on them did) until after the war was over and the Allies had to use valuable shipping space to keep them from starving. "The enemy always gets a vote." As far as democracies are concerned, I believe there are 72 in the world with us being the first. Most of the democracies have been formed since WW2 so it is not persuasive to me to say that countries in the middle east aren't good candidates for democracy. One of the older democracies is Turkey. However, founding democracies, to me, is not our job unless it is in our interest as a nation. I don't believe that Bush and Blair decided to make Iraq a democracy as their central aim. I believe their aims were several. First, they thought that Saddam had WMDs and or the capacity and intent to acquire them and would eventually get them into the hands of terrorists. They thought also that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia needed to have a demonstration of the will and power of the western democracies in the context of the war on terrorism and the takedown of Saddam offered an opportunity to intimidate those Arab countries and create a friendly and not too fundamentalist Arab democracy where we would be welcome to base troops to act as a stabilising influence in a critical part of the world. I believe that the tasks that Bush and Blair set out to achieve have a good chance of success. Those chances are not as good as they would have been if the opposition party in our government was not as power hungry and irresponsible as it is and of course the left wing press has done a wonderful job of misrepresenting the situation in Iraq. Have you noticed how the violence and attacks on US troops has escalated just before the hearings before congress with Petraeus and Crocker? Attacks and violence peaked in October, 2006, too, right before the elections. Interesting how the best and most reliable allies the Arab terrorists have is the democrat party, the media and uninformed voters in our country.

[pbfoot]

I may have the blinders on ref your position but you are also unreceptive the fact that the powers to be Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith also had the blinders on . Some comments by people who know more then you or I

"The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. They actually thought everyone would just line up and vote for a new democracy and you would have a sort of Denmark with oil. I blame Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the people behind him -- Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary Douglas Feith. The vice president himself should probably be included; certainly his wife. These so-called neocons: These people have no real experience in life. They are utopian thinkers, idealists, very smart, and they have the courage of their convictions, so it makes them doubly dangerous.."
Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak
Air Force chief of staff, 1990-94



"When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. We knew that we would find ourselves in a situation where we had completely uprooted an authoritarian government and would need to freeze the situation: retain control, retain order, provide security, seal the borders to keep terrorists from coming in.

When I left in 2000, General Franks took over. Franks was my ground-component commander, so he was well aware of the plan. He had participated in it; those were the numbers he wanted. So what happened between him and Rumsfeld and why those numbers got altered, I don't know, because when we went in we used only 140,000 troops, even though General Eric Shinseki, the army commander, asked for the original number.
Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. He had a hollow military, as we saw. If he had weapons of mass destruction, it was leftover stuff -- artillery shells and rocket rounds. He didn't have the delivery systems. We controlled the skies and seaports. We bombed him at will. All of this happened under U.N. authority. I mean, we had him by the throat. But the president was being convinced by the neocons that down the road we would regret not taking him out."
Gen. Anthony Zinni
Commander in chief of the United States Central Command, 1997-2000

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

FB and PB, I know I am peeing into the wind as I am not going to change your mind. However, just for future reference, I am going to complete this dialogue by saying the following: First, two axioms are always true. "Hindsight is twenty twenty." "The enemy always gets a vote." You and your left wing buddies always amuse me by saying Bush is to blame for not sending enough troops to Iraq.

I'm not sure whose "left-wing buddies" you are referring to here Ren, but I'm not a left winger and I find that mildly insulting. Just because I don't agree with all of Bush's moves does not make one left-wing. Because Pat Buchanan also disagrees with Bush and the conduct of US foreign policy does that make him a "left winger"?

Originally Posted by Renrich

Firstly, General Franks thought he had enough troops to defeat the Iraqui army and depose Saddam. Then the insurrection began and we hear the clamor from the naysayers, "not enough troops." Well, how many troops were enough? I don't know and I doubt if you do and I damn sure know that most of Bush's critics haven't a clue.

your quote tells volumes Ren, "General Franks thought he had enough troops to defeat the Iraqui army and depose Saddam." The General was correct, but of course he was only referring to the battle & deposing Saddam, the occupation would require many more. They were given a good estimate by the Chief of the Army, which was ignored. I might also note that Sen. Mcain & Sen. Biden {head of Foreign Relations comm.} both complained that the estimate of troops was too low. Cheney & Rummy decided to ignore Shinseki's advice, that was the original problem.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Chief of the US Army Gen. Shinseki is famous for his remarks to the U.S. Senate Armed Services committee before the 2003 invasion of Iraq war in Iraq in which he said "something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers" would probably be required for post-war Iraq. Then United States Secretary of Defense Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz publicly disagreed with his estimate

When the Iraqi insurgency insurgency took hold in post-war Iraq, Shinseki's comments and their public rejection by the civilian leadership were often cited by those who felt the Bush administration deployed too few troops to Iraq. On November 15, 2006, in testimony before Congress, Commander Gen. John Abizaid said that General Shinseki's estimate had proved correct.

Originally Posted by renrich

As far as democracies are concerned, I believe there are 72 in the world with us being the first.

Actually the British Parliment long outdates the US Congress....

Most of the democracies have been formed since WW2 so it is not persuasive to me to say that countries in the middle east aren't good candidates for democracy. One of the older democracies is Turkey.

And Turkey is hardly a poster child for a free democracy...

Turkey and democracy; The American model - International Herald Tribune

However, founding democracies, to me, is not our job unless it is in our interest as a nation.

Agreed

I don't believe that Bush and Blair decided to make Iraq a democracy as their central aim. I believe their aims were several. First, they thought that Saddam had WMDs and or the capacity and intent to acquire them and would eventually get them into the hands of terrorists. They thought also that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia needed to have a demonstration of the will and power of the western democracies in the context of the war on terrorism and the takedown of Saddam offered an opportunity to intimidate those Arab countries and create a friendly and not too fundamentalist Arab democracy where we would be welcome to base troops to act as a stabilising influence in a critical part of the world.

This is where their planning was badly flawed. Many policy advisors predicted that the power vacuum left by Saddam would be filled by radical Shia.

I believe that the tasks that Bush and Blair set out to achieve have a good chance of success.

I hope you are right, but I seriously doubt it.

Those chances are not as good as they would have been if the opposition party in our government was not as power hungry and irresponsible as it is.

Sorry, I think that is a total cop-out. You would have congratulated Bush if his wild gamble had worked, and you will blame the Dems if it fails, ignoring the many mistakes made by Bush's administration.

That's about as realistic as Hitler blaming Germany's defeat on his Generals who refused to carry out his delusional orders.

[renrich]

My apologies to you FB, if I unfairly labeled you as a lefty. I have had much experience at the local level with left wing politicians. On the whole, they have few redeeming characteristics. They are unscrupulous, power mad and the phrase, "the end justifies the means," fits them to a tee. As far as "expert" former military, many are politically inclined, "know it alls" and have no idea how the real world operates. That is why in the US, the military is subordinate to civilians. I don't "cop out." Time will tell. Fortunately for the US, neither of you have the vote.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

My apologies to you FB, if I unfairly labeled you as a lefty. I have had much experience at the local level with left wing politicians. On the whole, they have few redeeming characteristics. They are unscrupulous, power mad and the phrase, "the end justifies the means," fits them to a tee. As far as "expert" former military, many are politically inclined, "know it alls" and have no idea how the real world operates. That is why in the US, the military is subordinate to civilians. I don't "cop out." Time will tell. Fortunately for the US, neither of you have the vote.

Yep, I was born 25 miles too far north for that...

Ren if you mean that fortunately for Hillary & Obama, then you are correct.

I didn't think Bush was the best option in 2000 - I thought McCain was

I didn't like Kerry for prez & sure don't think Obama or the Hill will be.

I don't know what your opinion of McCain is, but I disagree with him the least of all the major candidates.

[renrich]

FB, since we are on another subject than Bush and his supposed inadequacies, I would enjoy a dialogue about the candidates today. Not that it matters but I was slated to go to the Naval Academy but flunked the physical. If I had not been color blind, I would have been in the class in front of McCain and probably would have done more poorly even than McCain. I have read quite a lot about him and feel a small kinship since I have always had a great interest in naval affairs and I am not unduly impressed by authority. Probably would have been kicked out of the academy for punching an upperclassman and I have never seen the use of hazing, having endured much of it and never reciprocated when I was eligible. I believe he has the character, background and intelligence to make a good president. I have quit listening to Limbaugh because of his continued sniping at McCain. I don't know what Limbaugh's game is but if McCain is defeated I will hold Limbaugh partially responsible. ( as if he cares) By the way, did you know that Ollie North and Jim Webb were in the academy together, a few years after McCain. They fought one another in the ring. Ollie won, thank goodness. (Webb is the turncoat senator from Virginia) Also by the way, according to Wiki, in 1780, Parliament was elected by less than 3% of the people and was only in session when the King asked them to be. I would hesitate to call that a democracy. Actually, my preferred form of government for the next few years is a Benevolent Dictatorship with me as the head of government.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

FB, since we are on another subject than Bush and his supposed inadequacies, I would enjoy a dialogue about the candidates today.

Sure if you want a wacky Canadian's view!

Originally Posted by renrich

Not that it matters but I was slated to go to the Naval Academy but flunked the physical. If I had not been color blind, I would have been in the class in front of McCain and probably would have done more poorly even than McCain. I have read quite a lot about him and feel a small kinship since I have always had a great interest in naval affairs and I am not unduly impressed by authority. Probably would have been kicked out of the academy for punching an upperclassman and I have never seen the use of hazing, having endured much of it and never reciprocated when I was eligible. I believe he has the character, background and intelligence to make a good president.

I'm with you on that. I don't "hate" Bush personally, I just didn't think he had what it takes to be President in 2000. I can never really forgive him for the underhanded way in which he {his surrogates} trashed McCain in S.C. in 2000.
I have alot of respect for McCain speaking out about Kerry & the purple hearts in 2004. I don't agree with Kerry, but it's the Army's call on who gets a P.H.

I thought McCain would have been better because he is more diplomatic than Bush {"my way or the highway"}, he had much more foreign experience, & he is a veteran, which means he understands the consequences of what he does.

I would be a little worried about him in 2008, I think he is still capable, but he looks a little tired on TV, I'm sure the media will harp on his age every time he mis-speaks or mis-quotes.

I don't really understand why Brownback's & Hunter's campaign went nowhere, they would have been far better than Guiliani IMO. You are next door to Brownback aren't you? {Kansas?} What went wrong there?

Originally Posted by renrich

Also by the way, according to Wiki, in 1780, Parliament was elected by less than 3% of the people and was only in session when the King asked them to be. I would hesitate to call that a democracy. Actually, my preferred form of government for the next few years is a Benevolent Dictatorship with me as the head of government.

The early democratic movements excluded most of the people, USA included {blacks, women, etc. had no vote.} After the English Civil war {1660's} and the "Glorious revolution" {1688} the King could not ignore or control Parliment, the era of the "absolute monarchy" was gone. Various reforms in the 1700's & 1800's extended more rights & voting privilages to more people. The key point was not how parliment was elected, but that an elected deliberative body was making decisions, not just the whims of one man. The US system is a development of the UK model, with some very smart & wise men {Jefferson etc} making improvements on it. {checks & balances}

more later...

[pbfoot]

I would at this point in time also vote for Mccain his life experience puts him head and shoulders above the rest. Surprised Ren

[renrich]

Let's not be downgrading McCain because of his age. As far as I am concerned the seventies are the shank of life. PB, yes, I am surprised and elated. I was concerned about his vitality and stamina but no longer am. Actually I think he is a much better candidate today than he would have been 20 years ago. To begin with, have you seen his mother who is, I believe, 93 or so? He has good genes. I believe the wisdom he has gained during his lifetime will stand him in good stead and he probably is a little less headstrong and a little more patient than he was at 50. I would not count on too much tractability on his part. He does not have that reputation. I do think he will do what he thinks is right for our country, not what is right for his popularity or for his political party. Sorry, much like Bush.

[pbfoot]

The one concern i might have which would give me cause for thought would be his running mate , considering his age this is an important issue in my mind . As for Bush just don't think he's cut from the same cloth as his old man his politics IMHO are below the belt

[Njaco]

I've always had the feeling that Bush relied too much on his advisors and therefore it reflected on him. The more I read and learn about Rumsfeld and Cheney, I cringe alittle. Very bombastic lot.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

Let's not be downgrading McCain because of his age. As far as I am concerned the seventies are the shank of life..

Ren, I don't think his age is a problem, its better to have a more mature President, an older wiser one than a younger rah-rah type personality.

I just have a feeling that the media is going to zero in on that.

They will be comparing him as a tired old warhorse to a younger wet-behind-the-ears Obama.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I kinda wonder if this election will be mainly decided by that, age, which like you said is a silly to judge a candidate by.

And that Barack Obama enchants the crowds with his voice.

[renrich]

There is no question that the media will focus on McCain's age even though he has a good relationship with the press. That good relationship will be offset by the media's desire to see an African American as president. It will be a campaign of experience and substance versus the perception of new ideas and "change" Of course the "new ideas" will just be the same old warmed over socialist BS. The fly in the buttermilk for the democrat party is that there may be many Anglo-European-Americans who will not vote for an African American no matter what.

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by freebird

It would be great Ren, and I doubt that it will happen. Soon you will have a government there in which Sadr is involved or has major influence.

There is no reason to believe this if support is reasonably maintained. Iraq appears to be starting to stabilize.

Former colonies, developing countries in Africa & Asia, and former league of nation mandates have about a 95% failure rate.

The US has been more successful for places it has occupied.

Philippines - successful democracy
South Korea – successful democracy
Puerto Rico – successful democracy
Guam – successful democracy
Japan – successful democracy
Germany – successful democracy
Cuba – failure

My criteria:

For what?

Note that this does not include "developed nations" in Europe or Australia, NZ, Canada, Israel, Japan etc.

Let’s see. Germany, at the outbreak of WWII, was run by a maniac, had a persecuted population, a large, modern military, and wanted to take over its neighbors. Japan was run by a tyrant, had a subjugated population, a large, modern military, and wanted to take over its neighbors. Both had very little to none experience with democracy. Both sounds a lot like Iraq at the beginning of the Gulf War. I don’t think you can claim Japan or Germany was any more emotionally “developed” than Iraq.

Would it be Jordan which had gone over a decade since elections after the executive suspended many legislative rights in 2001?

Democracy In Jordan?

Here and Now : Democracy in Jordan? - 6/21/2005

However, influence can still be brought to bear and progress can be made, which is much different than Iran.

King Hussein Signs Charter Reviving Jordan Democracy - New York Times

Or Egypt where the 2 main opposition leaders from the 2005 election were either jailed or fled the country?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/wo...=1&oref=slogin

Again, at least some influence is being made.

CNN.com - Rice speech promotes democracy in Egypt - Jun 21, 2005

Yemen? Saudi Arabia which supplies money for terrorists?

Yemen needs work but influence can still be made.

They should have known that democracy was near impossible for Iraq, and had a better plan

You have no idea whether this statement is true or not. That book is still being written. There is still significant hope (increasing) that this can be accomplished. If the firemen stay until the fire is under control, the house may be saved. If the firemen are removed too soon, all hope is lost. The chances of failure, and disaster, is much greater and riskier, if troops are removed from Iraq too soon than the chance of failure if the troops stay until stability is insured (reasonable time).