What do you think of our current President?

[freebird]

Originally Posted by davparlr

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

With an investment of hundreds of billions of $$$ & hundreds of thousands of troops deployed in each country, almost all of the the former colonies/third world countries could be made relatively stable & peaceful

Originally Posted by davparlr

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

I didn't say "occupied" I specifically said "former colonies/mandates, or third world countries in Africa/Asia"

I also should have specified "Independant countries" not dependant territories

Originally Posted by davparlr

Philippines - successful democracy X

Are you kidding???

Military dictatorship overthrew democratic rule in the 70's & 80's, several coups & many coup attempts, election fraud, rampant corruption, this is hardly a success.

BBC News | ASIA-PACIFIC | High cost of corruption in Philippines
Corruption Strangling the Philippines: Arroyo
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups...npan019122.pdf
EDSA Revolution of 2001 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Garci scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Puerto Rico – successful democracy X
Guam – successful democracy X

Neither of these are independant countries, they are dependant territories of the USA {maintained by US military & US $$$}

Japan – successful democracy X not a former colony

Japan was not a former colony, it was an industrialized former colonial power, and as I said I wasn't including Japan, or Israel {a unique case} or the dominions {Canada Austalia etc}, I specifically said "former colonies/mandates".

Germany – successful democracy X not a former colony


Again a former colonial power, not a colony. Germany had educational freedoms, religeous tolerance, democratic representative traditions dating back to the North German Confederation and earlier
{not during Nazi years of course}

North German Confederation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cuba – failure X

South Korea – successful democracy I'll give you this one.

Don't forget that Korea was originally a UN mission, one of the few successes of that organization. However the maintainance of this "successful democracy" does cost the US a big chunk of money and a permanent deployment of 30,000 - 40,000 US soldiers

Originally Posted by davparlr

For what?

The original definition for a "win" in Iraq - A Free, Stable, Democratic country

My criteria was my opinion what I consider that to be. If others think that "Free & democratic" could mean that any Muslim that completely agrees with the Allotoyah is "free"? Or that "Stable" is more than 6 months?, then perhaps more countries could pass.

Originally Posted by Freebird

Free & democratic - with functioning democratic institutions, without rampant corruption & voting fraud

Stable - should be for at least 40 or 50 years without genocide, coups, rigged elections, civil war, juntas, mass violence, etc.

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

Originally Posted by davparlr

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.

I think you are wrong about Germany, there had been an exchange of scientific, religeous, political ideas in Germany for many decades {centuries}, while the Arab population of Iraq have little experience or expectation with those ideas. Japan was a different case altogether. Also Marshall & MacArthur were very capable and helped re-build Japan, compared to Bush's men in Iraq {Bremer etc.} who really had no clue what to do

Originally Posted by davparlr

Jordan

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

Egypt

Again, at least some influence is being made.

Yemen

Yemen needs work but influence can still be made.

I agree with you that influence can be made, if used wisely

Originally Posted by davparlr

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).

OK don't misunderstand me here, I'm not advocating abandoning the Middle East, I think the US will have troops there for a long time.

I think the problem is that the idea of "nation building" is bound to fail. The plan for post-war Iraq was a disaster, even McCain has said this.

[Karl Sitts]

Freebird, Bush asked congress at the time of his "Mission Accomplished!" speech for 87 million dollars to rebuild Iraq-and there were about 26 million men, women and children in Iraq.How about we bring our troops home and give every man, woman and child in Iraq one million dollars and let them move to a country of their choice?I'm tired of counting "American Success"in American bodies!-Karl

[davparlr]

[quote=freebird;348636]

With an investment of hundreds of billions of $$$ & hundreds of thousands of troops deployed in each country, almost all of the the former colonies/third world countries could be made relatively stable & peaceful

I don’t remember the Europeans complaining about the Marshall plan.

I didn't say "occupied" I specifically said "former colonies/mandates, or third world countries in Africa/Asia"

How much you want to bet that those “former colonies” were once “occupied”.

I also should have specified "Independant countries" not dependant territories

They could vote to be independent any time.

Are you kidding???

Military dictatorship overthrew democratic rule in the 70's & 80's, several coups & many coup attempts, election fraud, rampant corruption, this is hardly a success.

They seem to be a bit unstable but still fall back on the basics of democracy. As for corruption, very few countries have not had corruption, not even Canada, I would bet. Don’t they have a province that wants to sucede?

Don't forget that Korea was originally a UN mission, one of the few successes of that organization. However the maintainance of this "successful democracy" does cost the US a big chunk of money and a permanent deployment of 30,000 - 40,000 US soldiers

If you are saying that Korea is “successful” in the same manner that GB, France, Germany, Austria, Denmark, et.al. are “successful” democracies because the US influx of money (see Marshall plan) and troops (250,000 troops were in Germany for 40 years) then, you are right. And then there is the almost 7 billion dollar trade surplus to Canada to help keep its democracy working. It sounds like you seem to think that most of the world’s successful democracies are or was held up by American money and guns. I think this is a strange comment.

The original definition for a "win" in Iraq - A Free, Stable, Democratic country

My definition of success in Iraq would be a stable government, non-threatening to non-threatening neighbors, reasonable non-oppressive to its population and actively supporting anti-terrorist programs. Another Jordan would be fine.

Japan was a different case altogether. Also Marshall & MacArthur were very capable and helped re-build Japan, compared to Bush's men in Iraq {Bremer etc.} who really had no clue what to do

Marshall and MacArthur had a society utterly eradicated by incendiary and nuclear bombs. It is often easier to raze and old house and build a new one than it is to try to save part of the old house and build around it. Even so, there was considerable struggle in Japan. In Iraq, the effort to try to preserve the society as best as possible made it tough. I do think that MacAuthur was exceptional in overseeing the rebuilding of Japan. That, and Inchon, are the two best accomplishments of Mac Arthur, in my opinion. However, if you had put MacAuthur in charge of Iraq, he probably would have nuked the place first.

I won’t defend the effort right after the war; I too, think it was a failure. However, many great leaders stumbled significantly before establishing an effective effort and history eventually holds them as successful. This includes Washington, Lincoln, Grant, Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and many, many others.

I think the problem is that the idea of "nation building" is bound to fail.

A blanket statement like this is not justified. Nation building did indeed work in many places such as Germany and Japan, and for that matter most of Western Europe. It may not work in the Middle East, but, even that is not known.

The plan for post-war Iraq was a disaster, even McCain has said this.

Diasters are not unique.

Washington had his Brandywine and Philadelphia

Lincoln had his Bull Run I and II, Peninsula Campaign, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville

Grant his Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor

Churchill his Gallipoli and Dieppe

Roosevelt his Pearl Harbor, Corregidor, Bataan Death March, and Kasserine Pass

Eisenhower his Battle of the Bulge

Kennedy his Bay of Pigs

Most of these errors were far worst than Iraq, post war till 2007.

If the pen had stopped at the end of any of these events, the reputation of the associated leader would be changed, but, as the poet Omar Khayyám said “The moving finger writes; and, having writ, moves on”. Here, the moving finger is still writing and is moving on.

The person who judges history while history is being made makes himself vulnerable to ridicule with the passage of time.

[renrich]

dav, you make many good points. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made in Iraq. Our intelligence was faulty but when has it not been. It is far better to react swiftly to intelligence reports of WMDs being in the hands of a nation's dedicated enemies than to ignore the warnings and risk having such weapons used against the West. That is what Bush and Blair did. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim fanatics have been killed by the Allies in their operations or have been killed by each other in Sunni-Shia clashes. Each of these terrorists was capable of inflicting huge losses on the civilians of the West. It is far easier to get them to congregate in batches in the Middle East and kill them there with our firepower than to try to pick them off one by one in the West. Moreover the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has attracted most of the bravest and most determined of the fundamentalists. They have come from all over the world-some from Western cities- to fight and be killed. Bush was correct to adopt a no risk policy, accepting the partisan criticism of his party's political opponents. Bush has never shown the slightest fear of unpopularity, putting the needs of his nation before his and his party's fortunes. If there is one thing which exceeds Mr Bush's courage, it is his resolution, persistence, his steadfast consistency. He is a leader who will not give way to threats, criticisms and abuse, a man of valor when times are hard. He may be obstinate and he may not be adept in explaining his policies but I will take him and I am glad he is still in charge for the rest of the year and our allies should share that gladness. May his successor show the same dauntless determination!

[Krabat42]

We have a saying in Germany. "Jedes Volk hat die Regierung, die es verdient."

Krabat

[Graeme]

Originally Posted by Krabat42

We have a saying in Germany. "Jedes Volk hat die Regierung, die es verdient."

Krabat

And in English?...

[Krabat42]

It means: "Every people has the government it deserves."

Krabat

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

dav, you make many good points. There is no doubt that mistakes have been made in Iraq. Our intelligence was faulty but when has it not been. It is far better to react swiftly to intelligence reports of WMDs being in the hands of a nation's dedicated enemies than to ignore the warnings and risk having such weapons used against the West. That is what Bush and Blair did. Hundreds of thousands of Muslim fanatics have been killed by the Allies in their operations or have been killed by each other in Sunni-Shia clashes. Each of these terrorists was capable of inflicting huge losses on the civilians of the West. It is far easier to get them to congregate in batches in the Middle East and kill them there with our firepower than to try to pick them off one by one in the West. Moreover the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq has attracted most of the bravest and most determined of the fundamentalists. They have come from all over the world-some from Western cities- to fight and be killed. Bush was correct to adopt a no risk policy, accepting the partisan criticism of his party's political opponents. Bush has never shown the slightest fear of unpopularity, putting the needs of his nation before his and his party's fortunes. If there is one thing which exceeds Mr Bush's courage, it is his resolution, persistence, his steadfast consistency. He is a leader who will not give way to threats, criticisms and abuse, a man of valor when times are hard. He may be obstinate and he may not be adept in explaining his policies but I will take him and I am glad he is still in charge for the rest of the year and our allies should share that gladness. May his successor show the same dauntless determination!

I agree with all you have said. I think mistakes were made after the defeat of the Iraqi army, and I believe these mistakes were maintained too long before they were corrected. However, if we had not removed Saddam we would, today, be looking at a Mid East with Iran developing atomic weapons, Syria, as we have found out recently, developing atomic weapons with the help of Korea, and in the middle Saddams Iraq. And He expressed in his confession that, while he did not have WMDs, he would continue to seek WMDs.

(CBS) In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.

"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...494_page6.shtm

So, now there would be three nations striving to achieve an atomic bomb. Three nations, side by side, that hate Israel, hate Western culture, and hate each other. Three nations within 500 miles of probably more than 50% of the world oil reserves. Talking about sitting on a powder keg, or worse, sitting on an a-bomb with a madman with his finger on the trigger (we almost already have that!). I find it inconceivable to believe that anybody that has thought this out from a strategic standpoint would believe this would be a better world than having 150,000 plus of the world’s best troops setting right in the middle, keeping a lid on this coalition from hell from trying to blackmail the West, Israel, Saudi Arabic, other Arab states or trying to blow each other up, which would be just as traumatic. You think $4.00 a gallon is expensive.

Bush and Blair were not wrong. The roads not taken were loaded with far more powerful IEDs.

[freebird]

Originally Posted by davparlr

I agree with all you have said.

I have to disagree with some of it, but I'll have to save some for when I have time. {that damn J.O.B. thingy again! If only I was a radical unemployed socialist I would have SOOOOO much more time }

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.

Ren I wonder if you can explain this to me. Of all the republicans, I thought Brownback was the best, he was a solid conservative but more of a "sensible realist" on Iraq. {not a Bush "partisan"} Why did his & Duncan Hunter's campaign go nowhere, while the Repubs flirted with Guiliani, {the pro-abortion pro-gay rights serial adulterer}, now McCain is the nominee, with Limbaugh, Bob Barr & the right wingers threatening to vote for a "third party"? I liked McCain as the best in 2000, but I fear his time has gone, you know the media will bring up his age unmercifully. {again it wouldn't bother me, but I worry that he will be painted the "old" candidate, like Dole was.


Why can't the right pick a good solid conservative candidate?

Originally Posted by davparlr

think mistakes were made after the defeat of the Iraqi army, and I believe these mistakes were maintained too long before they were corrected.

We are fully in agreement on this one, Dave, all of the wasted time, money and troops could have been put to much better use. {if the mistakes in the Iraq situation had been corrected quicker, stronger action could have been threatened against nuclear Iran Korea etc}

Originally Posted by davparlr

However, if we had not removed Saddam we would, today, be looking at a Mid East with Iran developing atomic weapons..

Perhaps. I don't have any problem with Bush ousting Saddam. It is the mis-handling afterward and this "nation building" experiment that I disagree with.

Originally Posted by davparlr

I find it inconceivable to believe that anybody that has thought this out from a strategic standpoint would believe this would be a better world than having 150,000 plus of the world’s best troops setting right in the middle, keeping a lid on this coalition from hell from trying to blackmail the West, Israel, Saudi Arabic, other Arab states or trying to blow each other up, which would be just as traumatic. .

Depends on exactly WHERE in the MidEast and WHAT they are doing. I don't think they should be trying to referee a civil war. I liked Biden's plan, which included keeping the troops in several large bases in Iraq, to monitor Al Queda and to keep an eye on Iran instead of trying to prop up a flaky semi-democratic Govt in Baghdad. I would point out that this is exactly the direction McCain is going {in his "100 years" speech}, Nato would stay in Iraq & Afganistan, just not constantly taking casualties. {like in Germany or Korea}

Originally Posted by davparlr

Bush and Blair were not wrong. The roads not taken were loaded with far more powerful IEDs.

I didn't like the way that the lead up to the war was handled, but I don't have a problem with "taking out" a nasty tyrant

[renrich]

First, FB, I would like to thank you as a non-citizen for worrying about the expenditures of our Federal government as in your remarks about the expense of maintaining troops in Korea. However, I have heard it said, although I don't understand the bookkeeping, that it is cheaper to maintain those forces in Korea and in Europe than it would be at home. Along those same lines, I believe that Bush and his cohorts had all along the idea that once Iraq was freed of Saddam and a reasonably stable friendly government was installed in Iraq that we would have a secure and welcomed place to base a sizable force for the forseeable future. There was the added benefit of putting a scare into the neighboring Arab countries as in "This could be you." There have been many collateral benefits of the war such as not having to maintain carrier battle groups perpetually in the Gulf and Med. Not having to patrol the no fly zones. Perhaps the most useful benefit is that we now have part of our army well trained and experienced in urban warfare as well as a notion about which of our equipment works and which does not. OJT, so to speak. I don't understand what you are saying about Biden's plan. How can we maintain troops in a country that has no government without taking on the role of occupiers. We did not do that in Germany or Japan except initially. As far as the troop surge and it's efficacy it seems to have had a good effect but don't overlook much behind the scenes wheeling and dealing diplomatically between Sunni and Shias as well as not noticeable to the public pressures and threats against the other Arab countries in the region, especially Iran. As a matter of fact there are some goings ons right now that may be part of that threat or pressure technique against Iran. Notice a carrier battle group is being deployed into the region and the US is buying oil for the Pet. Reserve. Those are signals that Iran will find hard to ignore, although they may be precautions against possible bad circumstances. The salient point to me is that the Iraq situation for the most part has been underreported and mis reported consistently by the left wing media in this country. Most of the media is lazy, biased and doesn't have enough sense to get in out of the rain. They are contemptible and my attitude toward them is held by most of the informed people in this country(which admittedly there are not many of.) As far as the Republican candidates are concerned, the Repubs wound up nominating the right candidate as far as electability is concerned. The other candidates, other than possibly Romney, did not have a ghost of a chance to be elected. One can say that the process worked. Remember, politics is the art of the possible.

[Rook58]

Hate isn't the right word. But Bush, his appointees, and the decisions they've made have done damage to our military that will take years, if not decades, to recover from, and a lot of good people have died because they didn't listen to the input of their commanders, shortchanged the troops on a lot of things they need, and generally showed amazing levels of incompetence and callousness about the lives of the troops, vets, and our families.

They're recalling Marines in the IRR involuntarily and sending them for their fifth - count'em, fifth! combat tours, at the same time they're trying to block Senator Webb's new GI Bill, trying to stop the Congress from giving troops a 3.9% pay raise while food and fuel prices have gone up by a third in the last year, trying to cut VA hospital funding and staffing, cutting resources for VA community outreach programs. Maybe hate isn't the wrong word at that.

Civilians need to have ultimate control over geopolitics, but they need to stop at telling the military what needs to be done and let the military do the 'how' part of it.

Just when our special forces guys had a real shot at capturing or killing Bin Laden in Afghanistan, the Bush people pulled the area experts out as part of the buildup to invade Iraq, where there was zero Al Qaeda presence or influence.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld canned General Shinseki for telling them the truth when they were unrealistically best-casing the Iraq war.

They threw out the plans for a post-Iraq-invasion reconstruction that General Zinni's staff had spent years building when he had CentCom, because it had been done under the Clinton administration, General Franks went in with no reconstruction plan, then retired right after the invasion, dropping the mess into the lap of his successor and playing right into the hands of the Islamofascists.

After the Blackwater guys got killed in Fallujah, they ordered the First Marine Expeditionary Force to do a hard and heavy assault on the city when their lower intensity approach, increasing-street-presence approach was already working; then panicked and told them to stop and pull out, because of negative press, when they'd taken most of the city; then, after giving the insurgents plenty of time and warning to get ready and harden it, told them to go back in and take it the hard way after all. A lot of Marines died because of their pandering to the press and dithering.

What we have here is micromanagement of the military by civilians who neither understand what they're telling other people to do nor respect the knowledge or experience of those who do understand. And they don't show any signs, other than pretty words, of caring about the people who die as a result.

[renrich]

All these troops that are being called on to serve in Iraq are volunteers. With due respect to those who have died in combat, the number of KIAs in This war against terrorism is remarkebly low. Our military is killing terrorists in the Middle East in stead of having to kill them here and the military seems to be supporting the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan as evidenced by reenlistment rates. A GI bill which would pay for college after three years of service make no sense whatsoever. In what way has our military been damaged? Please support that statement with some detail, not just opinion. Just happened to read an article about Charley Weis and some other football coaches who went to the Middle East to visit wounded soldiers. The coaches said that everyone they visited with was fired up and committed to the mission in Iraq and they were very encouraged by the soldier's attitudes. Does not sound like our military agrees with the critics of the war.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Rook58

What we have here is micromanagement of the military by civilians who neither understand what they're telling other people to do nor respect the knowledge or experience of those who do understand. And they don't show any signs, other than pretty words, of caring about the people who die as a result.

I will certainly agree with that. I was flying my Division Commander and Rumsfeld in Iraq when he asked Rumsfeld for more troops. Rumsfeld told him no and then later denied ever being asked for more troops...

[Rook58]

The neocons have argued that the troops are volunteers as if that somehow makes it okay to use them reck