What does she actually think? Does she think?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-17-2006, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davparlr

I think Rice is doing a reasonable job in a position where you have to tip toe between unreasonable people.

That I will agree with. I dont think she is the worst one out of the bunch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davparlr

Judging people by their language is not reliable nor wise.

I agree, I never said she was wrong in what she said, I said it sounded stupid the way she said it and I thought it was funny. Some people on this site can not understand and jump at every conclusion to judge people even they dont understand what they are saying. I am not saying you are doing this though Dave.

It just seemed that Harvard automatically accused me of not supporting this government in a time of war when I supported it in the most important way imaginable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davparlr

As for Rumsfeld, the jury is sill out on him in my mind. I am sure that he is not particularly popular with the military, especially the Army, because of his redesign for a lighter, flexible quick-response military.

He is disliked by the military especially the army. Not because of this transformation though. The transformation is needed. Everything he does though makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs. Everyone from the Generals down to the Privates sees this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davparlr

No matter what, don't believe for a minute that our lifestyle (the civilized world) is not a stake in Iraq and the middle east. If we get out, I can pretty well garantee that we will be back in the near future. Unless, of course we decide to develop energy independence (which will take a long time).

Agreed I have been a suporter of the war in Iraq from the beginning. What I dont agree with is how it was managed. I too dont think we can afford to pull out now. If we do it would be disastrous, but I think that Rumsfeld should have listened to the military on how to handle this post war crisis instead of ruling it with an iron fist.

Erich · 09-19-2006, 06:10 PM

you know of course we could of done a "Blitzschlacht" but did not.

sometimes the political arena needs to be silenced and the military given full regin to do the job, get it done and come home. We definately would of made a stronger impression on our neighboring Allies and especially on the two faced Muslim extremists ........

may you be blessed by Allah, Infidel !

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-20-2006, 05:36 AM

I agree Erich but it will never work that way again. The last time we saw that was WW2.

mkloby · 09-20-2006, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Agreed I have been a suporter of the war in Iraq from the beginning. What I dont agree with is how it was managed. I too dont think we can afford to pull out now. If we do it would be disastrous, but I think that Rumsfeld should have listened to the military on how to handle this post war crisis instead of ruling it with an iron fist.

I definitely agree with the cause for going into Iraq... however I disagree with this mission to hand them a democracy in a nice little wrapped package. If we left tomorrow, you can guarantee that the Iraqi gov't would collapse. I'm not so sure that this is going to change if you tack on another year or two even. I hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see this government surviving. But I do recognize how the Bush admin was and still is in a very difficult situation.

It's a path that I see us going down with Iran - but the stakes are even greater than with Iraq. Risk allowing them to develop, say, a nuclear bomb - which you know would be used... or go to war. Unfortunately, unlike many liberal minded individuals, I don't think you take a chance when you're talking about the future of the world. National sovereignty, self determination, international law, or any other theory or right does not grant any country the right to end the world. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-20-2006, 10:03 AM

I agree. I dont think we should pull out now but at the same time I dont really think that a couple more years can help this Iraqi Government, but we do need to finish what we started.

Erich · 09-20-2006, 12:12 PM

Civil war is immenient............and do not forget the Kurds whom will be part of this. Iran wants a take over as Mohumad or whatever that fool calls himself over in Tehran is just dying for a chance to move in. Right now it is subtle and that is what "we" are trying to prevent. It is unfortunate though as Syria is also vieing or jocking for a political position and trying to assert itself, and although Syria/Iran have had their talks deep down the distrust is still there from ancient times

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-20-2006, 12:16 PM

Unfortunatly you are correct Erich.

Erich · 09-20-2006, 12:19 PM

yes I've seen it in Jordan and Israel already and you have more than enough first hand experience in Iraq/theater Chris so you know all too well what is going to happen

my thoughts is just keep that sort of riff-raff thing over there and not here or Europe

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-20-2006, 12:23 PM

And that is the main reason why we can not pull out. It sucks and will probably never end but we can not let it get out of the border anymore than it allready has.

Erich · 09-20-2006, 12:29 PM

well too the world cannot allow idiots like Chavez form a union with Iran nor keep the slime ball Kofie-Anan in power in the UN as he has done some dirties behind the scens making deals with the "enemy". the US is being tested by criminals such as these besides the puny no balls in North Korea with his threats.

I just see these areas well suited for my ever increasing Velodrome plans ....

mkloby · 09-20-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erich

well too the world cannot allow idiots like Chavez form a union with Iran nor keep the slime ball Kofie-Anan in power in the UN as he has done some dirties behind the scens making deals with the "enemy". the US is being tested by criminals such as these besides the puny no balls in North Korea with his threats.

I just see these areas well suited for my ever increasing Velodrome plans ....

I'm not a big fan of multilateralism... especially in the form of UN action. The UN couldn't agree on the color of crap - let alone how to deal with issues such as Iraq, Iran, N Korea, etc. It's an impotent organization, and combined w/ this severe political ED, throw in corruption. Big surprise that UN interests rarely fall into line with US interests. I am not sure where along the line folks think the UN gained sovereignty over the USA, but it has no power over us. The UN is just as useless as the League of Nations was, and should stick to non military related relief operations. I can't stand when people argue that every US action needs the UN's approval to legitimize it. Those guys are dangerous! ala Top Gun 727

DerAdlerIstGelandet · 09-20-2006, 05:20 PM

The UN literally has no power. Chavez proved that when he gave a speech at the UN get together this week. In front of all of them he called Bush a devil and told the UN that they were powerless over what he does with his position.

Erich · 09-20-2006, 05:28 PM

proof right there the clown is a loser besides his own government. the UN has no balls

pbfoot · 09-20-2006, 06:37 PM

The UN has no balls because the security council has neutered it. Too many governments put their own priorities over the common good those are the ones with no balls

mkloby · 09-21-2006, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbfoot

The UN has no balls because the security council has neutered it. Too many governments put their own priorities over the common good those are the ones with no balls

Right there, my friend, is the amazingly simple reason why int'l gov't orgs cannot and will not work. Especially when certain nations antagonistic towards one another have veto powers... it's mind numbing how so many people do not understand this.