10 Feb 07
every one bashes on George W. Bush really hard about the job he's doing with the economy, war, etc.
but my question to anyone who criticizes him so hardly is this:
Could you do any better a job at leading this country through the first attacks on American soil in 60 years?
I think not.
Bill Clinton wouldn't have dona any better a job, as it was his slackened homeland security that enabled such an attack
11 Feb 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedok, so by now i've gathered that u are
a.) a bleeding heart liberal
b.) a sissy (who cares about namecalling? grow up)
c. ) emotionally disturbed ("mommy, he called me a moron *sniff* Im gonna break his jaw via internet *sniff*
and last but not least
d.) a punk (don't need to give any reasons here, uve just got that attitude)
11 Feb 07
The post that was quoted here has been removedHow could President Bush fire Shalishkavilli when he retired (Sept 97)from the service before Bush even took office. He is a arm chair General who was promoted to his position by Clinton because other than him the other Generals couldn't stand to be in the same room as Clinton. You know the only President who had veterans do an about face on when he spoke at Veterans day in Arlington. It didn't take 400,000 troops to defeat Iraq. They did it with half that many in three weeks. That includes the 20,000 troops who were'nt allowed to attack Iraq from Turkey at the onset of hostilities.. Sure there has been mistakes made in the war but to laud Shaliskavilli as the next Napolean is ludicrous. I think you may be getting Shinseki confused with Shaviskavilli. He was the Army Chief of Staff during the onset of the war.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by slimjimI think you'll find that taking any country is usually the least of any overwhelmingly superior forces' worry. Being able to restore order after the take over, and having the manpower to wrestle all the myriad of minor flareups, that when not adequately contained, become the backbone of a recalcitrant insurgency, which is at the heart of what has now become Bush's primary concern, to send more troops to ensure that the Peace half won is the Peace that will endure.
It didn't take 400,000 troops to defeat Iraq. They did it with half that many in three weeks. That includes the 20,000 troops who were'nt allowed to attack Iraq from Turkey at the onset of hostilities.
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by kmax87The US didn't have 400,000 troops to use for the invasion of Iraq. They were all in Europe, Korea, Japan and wherever else they have been for the last 60 years. They should have stamped out the insurgents during the begginning instead of worrying about world opinion.
I think you'll find that taking any country is usually the least of any overwhelmingly superior forces' worry. Being able to restore order after the take over, and having the manpower to wrestle all the myriad of minor flareups, that when not adequately contained, become the backbone of a recalcitrant insurgency, which is at the heart of what has now become B ...[text shortened]... concern, to send more troops to ensure that the Peace half won is the Peace that will endure.
11 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by slimjimagreed...
The US didn't have 400,000 troops to use for the invasion of Iraq. They were all in Europe, Korea, Japan and wherever else they have been for the last 60 years. They should have stamped out the insurgents during the begginning instead of worrying about world opinion.
screw world opinion...
screw foreign policy
america has become a babied society...
Edit: and how could i forget? screw the sasquatch as well
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30I disagree. Sasquatch and I don't usually see eye to eye but like me he is also a veteran and I respect his opinion even if I don't agree with it.
agreed...
screw world opinion...
screw foreign policy
america has become a babied society...
Edit: and how could i forget? screw the sasquatch as well
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by slimjimyeah but he flipped out when i told him he was a moron over some opinion he had...
I disagree. Sasquatch and I don't usually see eye to eye but like me he is also a veteran and I respect his opinion even if I don't agree with it.
i think it was something about Bill Clinton
anyway, he wigged, and told me hed break my jaw if he saw me face to face...
which i doubt hed do...
anyway, i have a deal of respect for veterans... im plannin on goin into the service myself as an engineer
but dude needs to chill
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by rubberjaw30Gee, you sure refuted all the points in his post.
ok, so by now i've gathered that u are
a.) a bleeding heart liberal
b.) a sissy (who cares about namecalling? grow up)
c. ) emotionally disturbed ("mommy, he called me a moron *sniff* Im gonna break his jaw via internet *sniff*
and last but not least
d.) a punk (don't need to give any reasons here, uve just got that attitude)
11 Feb 07
Originally posted by treetalkwho cares about the points in his stupid post?
Gee, you sure refuted all the points in his post.
at this point, i dont give a rats @ss about what he has to say