What do you think of our current President?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Trebor

history as in the first female president, and the first non-caucasian president.

Okay, but what can she do for our country? Have you actually read up on her views? I hope so, if you are considering voting for her. Go read up on her views, especially thoughs that have to deal with illegal immigration.

To vote for some one just because of there sex or color is not what the democratic system was set up for. It was set up to vote for the best possible candidate, who can do the best for the nation.

If you think that Hillary Clinton can do the best for the nation, then by all means vote for her. I however do not think she can.

Clinton is a communist power hungry bitch who can not tell the truth to save her life. She has been caught lieing almost weekly so far through this campaign.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Trebor

I really don't care who's in office.

That is the same attitude that puts the wrong people into office.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Perhaps a leader can't make this country better if we don't help him out ourselves. Perhaps some of us think a President can save us, when really he doesn't have that much power.

Winston Churchill didn't do it all by himself, he asked the British people to do that, if they would follow his lead.

Bush didn't do that very well, sadly most of the country doesn't really trust him.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

FB, how can you make plans for a situation which you have not dealt with before. Please tell me when lately the US Army has gotten into a similar situation as in Iraq. In hindsight, it may have been a mistake to disband the Iraqi army. It probably was a mistake not to have more combat troops in country. It certainly was a mistake to expect everyone in Iraq to suddenly become civil. I told a number of people in 1991 that our failure to take out Saddam had a silver lining as the aftermath of deposing him would be a big mess with many unknown factors.

Renrich I heard an interview last week with Doug Feith, {#3 in Def. Dept.
under Rumsfeld}, a man who I and many other think helped make huge problems in Iraq. However he had something interesting to say: The US army has made mistakes in every campaign it has been in - and it analyses & corrects these afterwards. However the top people in the State dept. are swept out with each new administration, while the new President often ignores the advice of the analysts or relies often on one of his cronies {Stimson, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Hopkins etc.} The State dept. does not have a mechanism to look at past diplomatic mistakes and to prevent repeats.

I would counter that the situation in Iraq has similarities to the war in Vietnam, & the situation in North Africa in WWII. You could also compare it to the Soviets in Afganistan in the 80's. In both Afganistan & Vietnam the superpower tried to prop up a weak allied government that the population did not respect, and saw as "puppets". In both cases the superpower failed to maintain military control over a country in which the population was not supportive.

In WWII North Africa the original plan was to sweep away the Vichy government & military, and to bring in someone loyal to the Allies, {Giraud} and rely on the Free French. Instead the plan was a total flop, none of Vichy officails would cooperate. Eisenhower then within a week or two came up with an alternate plan. He has sometimes been critisized for his actions there, for using men of the former Vichy regime to control the area. I think he was 100% correct in what he did. He sent a telegram to Churchill & Roosevelt saying that he had taken this decision on his own initiative to prevent disorder & rebellion. If he had dismissed all of the Vichy Soldiers & officials {such as was done to the Bathists in Iraq} he would risk not only their rebellion, but also that of the large local Muslim population, already angry about food shortages. He also said "Ï have taken these measures to maintain security for the war effort, what happens after the war is up to you - the politicans - to decide".

If anyone in the State dept. had bothered to look at the facts, they would realize that new democracies in former colonies/L.O.N. mandates which do not have a history of human/civil/democratic rights, have a 90% failure rate in the first 20 -50 years or so. Almost all of these countries, after the first national vote, later decend into dictatorship, theocracy, revolution, terrorism, genocide, chaos. {eg. Congo, Burma, Somalia, Uganda, Cambodia, Iran, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Philippines, Pakistan, Algeria, Sudan, Iraq, etc etc. - the list goes on}

They should have been smart enough to complete the mission, put in place a stable non-hostile government, and leave the utopian plans for democracy for the future. I have no problem with Bush removing a dangerous ruthless dictator. I think that "nation building" was a huge mistake.

Originally Posted by renrich

Did it occur to you that the reason we did not have more troops on the ground there in the beginning was that we did not have the men ready and able to deploy with the logistical support necessary. We were fighting a timeline to get the invasion started before summer began. Perhaps if our allies had been more willing to commit troops, we could have dealt better with the insurgency.

And if Bush had been a little more courteous & willing to compromise with the French & Germans, he could have had more support. The extra delay of 4 -6 weeks {that the French were asking for} would not have changed the military outcome, but would have allowed the European allies to be supportive without "losing face". Instead Bush was told that the Iraq campaign would be "ä walk in the park", and that support of the allies was not needed.

Originally Posted by renrich

My point is that all leaders make mistakes. I have built more than 200 homes, most of them not copies and have never finished a one without wishing that I had done something differently. There are a number of historians and retired generals in the US that believe the Italian campaign was not productive for the men and effort expended.

Ok now I understand what you were meaning. The delays caused by the wrangling between the British & US staffs left the Germans with enough time to move into Italy and consolidate defensive preparations. Also the Allies faced one of Germany's best defensive generals {Kesselring}. if the Allies had moved very quickly after Sicily, they could have taken Italy with far less effort, and trapped a large German army in southern Italy. After a delay of several months, the chance was lost.

Originally Posted by renrich

How do you feel about Dieppe, an operation planned with Churchills approval?

Operation Jubilee {Dieppe} was a fiasco for sure, pushed by Mountbatten & to a lesser extent by Churchill, over the objections of the chiefs of staff. Mountbatten was nowhere near as capable as Admiral Keyes, who he took over from.

As I stated earlier, Churchill was one of our worst defence ministers, mainly for refusing to listen to sound military advice from those who had decades of experience. Much the same way as Bush and Rumsfeld ignored sound advice from Military leaders with decades of experience, such as Generals Powell, Zinni, Franks, Garner etc.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by freebird

The State dept. does not have a mechanism to look at past diplomatic mistakes and to prevent repeats..........

Yes

[Haztoys]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Okay, but what can she do for our country? Have you actually read up on her views? I hope so, if you are considering voting for her. Go read up on her views, especially thoughs that have to deal with illegal immigration.

To vote for some one just because of there sex or color is not what the democratic system was set up for. It was set up to vote for the best possible candidate, who can do the best for the nation.

If you think that Hillary Clinton can do the best for the nation, then by all means vote for her. I however do not think she can.

Clinton is a communist power hungry bitch who can not tell the truth to save her life. She has been caught lieing almost weekly so far through this campaign.

And the one thing know one ever looks at is how those in government vote on bills and so on...Man look up how Hillary votes...What she says and how she votes is not good

[Njaco]

Trebor, I wasn't implying that you are a racist or sexist. Sorry if it came off that way. Its just that I laugh every time the issue currently comes up among the democrat canidates. They are shooting themselves in the foot and just proves to me that they don't care about the party and its ideals, just power.

they would realize that new democracies in former colonies/L.O.N. mandates which do not have a history of human/civil/democratic rights, have a 90% failure rate in the first 20 -50 years or so. Almost all of these countries, after the first national vote, later decend into dictatorship, theocracy, revolution, terrorism, genocide, chaos.

Freebird, I agree 100%! Why is it armchair generals like us can see that but nobody where it matters?

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Freebird, I agree 100%! Why is it armchair generals like us can see that but nobody where it matters?

Maybe, because guys like us are not doing politics for a living $$$

Regards
Kruska

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Njaco

Freebird, I agree 100%! Why is it armchair generals like us can see that but nobody where it matters?

Perhaps because we let facts get in our way?

I just hope that in the "worst case-scenario" if Obama gets in that he appoints Biden or somebody reasonably sensible as Sec. of State, and not some radical like John Kerry, Dennis Kusinch or "Baghdad Jim" mcDermott.

And to those who think we can perform some miracle and drag the Muslim countries out of the 12th century.... sorry I think it's not going to work.

Forget about the "home run", lets just try to get on base. If you can leave Iraq as reasonably stable, some improvement for the population, without having terrorist camps, not as an Iranian "puppet" - I think that will be enough. leave 40,000 or 50,000 troops in bases there, to prevent Iranian expansion, terrorists from setting up shop, and radicals from coming across the border.

If these two sects of Islam are really determined to kill each other - so be it.

[renrich]

Tony Blair stood tall today when interviewed on the Today show as regards the Judas, McClellan's book and his accusations. It was interesting to watch Matt Lauer and how intimidated he was by Blair, who really knows how to handle himself.

[pbfoot]

all McClellan did is say what everyone else knows its not news it's just verification IMHO

[renrich]

In your opinion, you should add! Good amendment. Many thanks. Please see my post # 795 with my final opinion.

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by renrich

In your opinion, you should add!

I amended my post.... your turn

[freebird]

Originally Posted by renrich

Tony Blair stood tall today when interviewed on the Today show as regards the Judas, McClellan's book and his accusations. It was interesting to watch Matt Lauer and how intimidated he was by Blair, who really knows how to handle himself.

What was the book about? The false information in the lead up to the Iraq war?

At the time there was some efforts by Blair & the Canadian PM to broker a compromise between the White House & the Europeans.

After the shooting started Blair gave his support for Bush without voicing any reservations.

I personally think that in some ways it was a payback for Roosevelt's solid support prior to WWII, Britain was going to follow the lead of the USA, and not make public whatever reservations they may have had about war strategy.. Just IMO

[renrich]

FB if you do not see the war against Islamic Extremism through the same lens as I do and probably as Bush and Blair do, then there is nothing to be gained by continuing this debate. I don't believe that logic supports a position that Bush, Blair, Powell, Rice or even Clinton lied about WMDs or their motives for invading Iraq. I can't furnish irrefutable proof for that statement. Neither can you for your position. Time will tell as to whether the decisions made since 9-11 were correct.