I'm not mad at Bush for invading, but the poor planning

Discussion in 'TM Lounge' started by jamesfrmphilly, Apr 23, 2004.

  1. jamesfrmphilly

    jamesfrmphilly Piano User

    Oct 31, 2003
    the north philly ghetto
    for 225B i would expect a lot better performance.
    with that kind of money you should be able to raise an army of more than 125k.
    or just divide it up and hand it all out to the Iraqis. 8)
  2. ScreaminRaider

    ScreaminRaider Piano User

    Apr 22, 2004
    San Antonio, Tx
    Yeah, I'm all for what we are doing, and I support Bush 100 percent, but I wish they would get something done over there. Too many soldiers are dying while the government stands around worrying about the election. My little brother is going over there this summer, and I don't want him to be stuck somewhere where he has to wait for someone to shoot at him until he can do something. In Vietnam, the government went at it half-ass, and too many men died for that. I don't want that to happen now. I say go at it 100%, or not at all.
  3. jamesfrmphilly

    jamesfrmphilly Piano User

    Oct 31, 2003
    the north philly ghetto
    how can anyone support Bush when he is in charge of this mess?
  4. FreshBrewed

    FreshBrewed Mezzo Piano User

    Nov 11, 2003
    Houston, TX
    It really isn't as much of a mess as one would think.......

    Watching the military work, it looks like chaos. It is to a certain degree, but it is "organized".

    All that everyone sees on the news is soldiers getting killed. How many stories have you seen that were positive? Probably not a lot because they don't sell.

    Since I get all kinds of cool reports from Iraq, I can tell you there is a lot of good things happening there. Schools are being reopened and allowing females to attend. Water and electric plants that have been misused for years are being fixed on a regular basis. The people are holding peaceful demonstrations without fear of being tortured and killed. The number of people who don't want us there are the less than 1% that are from the old regime or are international terrorists.

    A lot of the money we are sending there is being used to just keep the country running. Remember, we are creating a whole new infrastructure and it isn't cheap. Maybe if the UN wasn't a bunch of whiners, we wouldn't be footing such a big bill. Most of the UN members are terrified of what happened to Spain and that is the reason they don't want to get involved. In a time like this, countries need to make sacrifices. I'm not saying for them to not care abouttheir citizens. I'm saying they need to stand up for what they believe in and not let a bunch of terrorists dictate their policies.
  5. jamesfrmphilly

    jamesfrmphilly Piano User

    Oct 31, 2003
    the north philly ghetto
    "The number of people who don't want us there are the less than 1% that are from the old regime or are international terrorists"

    that's the loudest 1% I've ever seen.

    if we are going to spend billions to rebuild some place, why can't it be North Philadelphia?
  6. trpguyy

    trpguyy Piano User

    Nov 26, 2003
    Get some mustard gas and a death wish, and you'll have your rebuilding eventually.
  7. jamesfrmphilly

    jamesfrmphilly Piano User

    Oct 31, 2003
    the north philly ghetto
    true that!
  8. jamesfrmphilly

    jamesfrmphilly Piano User

    Oct 31, 2003
    the north philly ghetto
    i have never been to West Point or anything, but i think if we had gone in there 500,000 strong like we did last time we wouldn't be getting the grief that we are getting now.
  9. gzent

    gzent Fortissimo User

    Nov 5, 2003
    Rochester, MN
    A few things to think about:

    1) Its true, the big news outlets always give the most press to big and bad news - it sells. The good news, of which I've also heard from a Doctor on reserve in Iraq, is real, but is not nearly reported as much as it should be.

    2) The US has not governed a defeated country since Japan, 1945. By the time McArthur took charge the Japanese were thoroughly beat down and not in any position to "resist". A much different scenario than Iraq 2004- same thing in Germany. Sophisticated technology has made it possible for the US military to disable a country's infrastructure and occupy without the horrendous death tolls of 60 years ago.

    Certainly any deaths are tragic, but hundreds of deaths are far better than hundreds of thousands like in WWII or tens of thousands in VietNam.

    3) If anyone thinks it is possible to engage in a major war and succeed without any unforseen and unexpected defeats along the way then they are naive. The important thing is that the Arab world sees that we are committed to a democratic Iraq, even though it is not going o be easy.
    The Arabic terrorists also need to be shown that we will no longer respond to cowardly, murderous acts with negotiation as in the past, but will respond with military action. Deadly force is the only response that is respected by these savages.

    4) Last time we fought Iraq in the desert and forced them to cease fire. We did not defeat Hussein, he stayed in power and almost immediately began violating the UN conditions of the cease fire. You must remember it was a much different world back then. Invading any country in the large Soviet dominated part of the world was risky business back then. Also, the shaky "alliance" we had with Saudi Arabia made it politically impossible for us to oust Hussein at that point in time.
  10. Tootsall

    Tootsall Fortissimo User

    Oct 25, 2003
    Yee HAW!
    And that's another thing (if you'll let a "foreigner" step in here for a moment). Gzent nailed a large portion of the "problem" with perceptions of the war when he mentioned "big news outlets".

    Today I hear on the radio that "someone" fired into a group of Iraqi children killing four. Quote: "some have CLAIMED that this was done by US soldiers". Unquote (I put in the Caps). Now notice that they did NOT say that "the shooting could have been done by anyone", or "some others claimed that they saw Iraqis or insurgents doing the shooting". The point is that NO PROOF HAS BEEN PERSENTED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER and yet the media chooses to select the more odious of many different possible explanations and put a teaser onto the story.

    I've long been critical of the media: they are the first to take the side of the political party in opposition, the words used are invariably slanted to be "negative" towards the ruling party, reports on social events are generally done without obtaining proofs or backing up the stories, quotes are printed and then attributed to unreliable witnesses OR ANYONE WHO WILL EVEN SPEAK TO THE REPORTER whether that person knows first hand or not.

    I remember taking a short journalism section in one of my high school Language classes. They stressed "ALWAYS REPORT THE FACTS" and leave editorializing to the editors.

    Unfortunately this lesson seems to have ben lost in today's media rush for sensationalism.

    Let's settle down and get the WHOLE story and THEN decide what was right and what was wrong.

Share This Page