Bush wants a "War Czar" for Iraq, Afghanistan

[StrangeSox]

But we did... and so now, the next best thing is to "get the hell out" (at any cost).

 

WOOT!

 

LOL.

 

This administration screws up just about every facet of the occupation and its somehow liberals' faults?

[kapkomet]

LOL.

 

This administration screws up just about every facet of the occupation and its somehow liberals' faults?

It's both sides - but I think that if we were more united, we'd be back home the right way sooner rather then later.

 

I also think that we are wussing out because we can't fight in a "REAL WAR, OMG!!!". The policies set by the Bushies have been listening to the libs (I know, what an oxymoron) trying to not inflict too much damage so they could try to keep them "on board" longer - which they weren't in the first place, so why bother? Now, we're seeing the results.

 

If you don't go into a war to win (as opposed to appeasement), forget it. And I will agree with BigSqwert's hidden implication that we were never there to "win" in the first place, so we shouldn't have gone in.

 

Would you agree, BS?

[StrangeSox]

I also think that we are wussing out because we can't fight in a "REAL WAR, OMG!!!". The policies set by the Bushies have been listening to the libs (I know, what an oxymoron) trying to not inflict too much damage so they could try to keep them "on board" longer - which they weren't in the first place, so why bother? Now, we're seeing the results.

 

That's entirely on Bush, not the Democrats he was trying to keep on board. Republicans had control of the federal government for 6 years. He could do as he pleased and they couldn't stop him. Plenty of military advisors told him that his plan was not going to work and that he needed many more troops, but, as he usually does with differing opinions, he blew them off.

 

Also, this administration sold this war as flowers and sunshine coming out of Iraqi assholes to the American people. It was going to be a cake-walk, we'd be greeted as liberators with chocolates and hugs and kisses. We'd depose Saddam and happiness and democracy would reign in Iraq. I'm beginning to think that they really believed this.

Edited April 16, 2007 by StrangeSox

[BigSqwert]

The policies set by the Bushies have been listening to the libs (I know, what an oxymoron) trying to not inflict too much damage so they could try to keep them "on board" longer - which they weren't in the first place, so why bother? Now, we're seeing the results.

 

Since when has Bush succumbed to appease the liberals with regards to this war? Give me evidence of this claim of yours.

 

If you don't go into a war to win (as opposed to appeasement), forget it. And I will agree with BigSqwert's hidden implication that we were never there to "win" in the first place, so we shouldn't have gone in.

I wouldn't say we were never there to "win" in the first place. I honestly think they thought they'd be greeted as liberators and that flowers would be thrown at their feet.

 

EDIT: Seems that StrangeSox and I think alike.

Edited April 16, 2007 by BigSqwert

[kapkomet]

Well, by a lot of accounts, we are treated with at least some sort of respect. And, of course, we're "crusaders" (aka occupiers) to others.

 

In regards to my first comment, there's two parts. One, the Bushies completely got it wrong after the first sox weeks (WEEKS!) of the war. Two, ever since then, they've been covering their asses. I'm in total agreement with ya'll on that one. However, I think part of the "stay the course" mentality has been to not freak out the 35-45% of the country who can't stomach the reality of war. Now, out of those 35-45%, I think almost all of them, if told the absolute truth (no sugar coat BS) about how important it is to "finish the job", they'd come around. But, they keep sticking their heads up each other's rear ends, saying everything's fine, and it's not. The last few people who are NEVER going to support a WORD that the Bushies say are the ones who scream the loudest (read: Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and their camera smooching techniques) are the ones that the Bushies are implicitly catering to in a very twisted way because they do hold power.

 

One thing that StrangeSox is right about is that they had 4 years to get it right, and they never did.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wouldn't say we were never there to "win" in the first place. I honestly think they thought they'd be greeted as liberators and that flowers would be thrown at their feet.

The military was, literally, told to expect that (read Cobra II or Fiasco). We not only started a really stupid war, we executed it incredibly poorly.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Really? I wanted us to never go to war with Iraq so I didn't get EXACTLY what I wanted.

 

^^^^

 

The "Well we're there now, so let's just move forward" wingnut mantra was tired four years ago and it's tired now. It was a mistake to begin the war then and it's a mistake to perpetuate it with no plan or direction now.

[Balta1701]

The military was, literally, told to expect that (read Cobra II or Fiasco). We not only started a really stupid war, we executed it incredibly poorly.

And beyond that, the people who spoke up and said that we should at least prepare for worse-scenarios than the rosiest ones either were told to be quiet or lost their jobs before the war started.

[Jenksismyhero]

And beyond that, the people who spoke up and said that we should at least prepare for worse-scenarios than the rosiest ones either were told to be quiet or lost their jobs before the war started.

 

But there are people who stand up all the time and disagree and want to take another course. You're looking at the entire situation in hindsight which isn't really fair to anyone involved. Had D-day failed it would have gone down as the worst war planning in the history of the US military. Instead it's known as one of the greatest ever in the history of war.

 

I have no problem with people who complain about the management of the war, that I can totally agree with. But the fact is the planning was adequate for what we thought we were going to face. Just because things didn't go as planned doesn't mean that it was poor planning or that the naysayer’s in the beginning were geniuses.

[StrangeSox]

But there are people who stand up all the time and disagree and want to take another course. You're looking at the entire situation in hindsight which isn't really fair to anyone involved. Had D-day failed it would have gone down as the worst war planning in the history of the US military. Instead it's known as one of the greatest ever in the history of war.

 

I have no problem with people who complain about the management of the war, that I can totally agree with. But the fact is the planning was adequate for what we thought we were going to face. Just because things didn't go as planned doesn't mean that it was poor planning or that the naysayer’s in the beginning were geniuses.

 

There were plenty of people who said exactly what is happening now was going to happen before the war. Pretty explicitly. Its not hindsight if you say it before it happens.

 

And the second part just goes back to the fact that the administration was just downright delusional about what would happen once we invaded. Plenty of people knew exactly what would happen and tried telling him. They were silenced or fired.

 

What you're arguing seems to be that we can't criticize any plans since we don't know the exact outcome before they were executed, regardless of how many holes people see in them before hand.

Edited April 16, 2007 by StrangeSox

[kapkomet]

It's over and done with, as we are there today, right or wrong.

 

So now, it makes it ok to just bust ass out of there as fast as we can?

 

I just can't buy that mindset, but boy, it sure makes it easy on people who think that way.

[FlaSoxxJim]

It's over and done with, as we are there today, right or wrong.

 

So now, it makes it ok to just bust ass out of there as fast as we can?

 

I just can't buy that mindset, but boy, it sure makes it easy on people who think that way.

 

The Rule of Holes applies here: When you realize you're in one, stop digging.

 

80% of Iraqis oppose occupation and want the US to set a timetable for withdrawal.

 

60% of Iraqis think US soldiers are acceptable as the targets of violent opposition to the occupation.

 

We're doing little to stop the sectarian violence, and the people who warn of apocalyptic consequences if we withdraw are the same ones who predicted flowers and candy when we went in. They have been wrong about everything to date, so what are the chances they are right about this?

 

If the majority of the people doing most of the dying think they would be better off with us gone, I think we should pay soem attention to them.

[Jenksismyhero]

There were plenty of people who said exactly what is happening now was going to happen before the war. Pretty explicitly. Its not hindsight if you say it before it happens.

 

And the second part just goes back to the fact that the administration was just downright delusional about what would happen once we invaded. Plenty of people knew exactly what would happen and tried telling him. They were silenced or fired.

 

What you're arguing seems to be that we can't criticize any plans since we don't know the exact outcome before they were executed, regardless of how many holes people see in them before hand.

 

There were plenty of military planners who were calling the d-day plans a certain massacre. If that had happened it would be the same situation.

 

And really, I dunno how delusional they were. I certainly didn't expect as much resistance once 90% of the Iraqi army was defeated or surrendered. I thought there would be backlash yes, but not to this scale. If anything they didn't think about the civil strife that would ensue. Did you really think that Iraqi's would be targeting Iraqi's once they were 'free?'

 

The management and response to what actually happened on the ground was, for lack of a better term, sh*tty. That I agree with.

[BigSqwert]

I certainly didn't expect as much resistance once 90% of the Iraqi army was defeated or surrendered.

I didn't realize they were taking your opinions into consideration before the invasion.

[StrangeSox]

There were plenty of military planners who were calling the d-day plans a certain massacre. If that had happened it would be the same situation.

 

And really, I dunno how delusional they were. I certainly didn't expect as much resistance once 90% of the Iraqi army was defeated or surrendered. I thought there would be backlash yes, but not to this scale. If anything they didn't think about the civil strife that would ensue. Did you really think that Iraqi's would be targeting Iraqi's once they were 'free?'

 

The management and response to what actually happened on the ground was, for lack of a better term, sh*tty. That I agree with.

 

Bush I and his administration wrote about why they weren't going in to Baghdad back in '91. They predicted that exactly what is happening now would happen. It would be a disaster.

 

Just about every event in recent history, along with a knowledge of all of the regional conflicts and power struggles withing the country, pointed to a disaster and not sunshine and flowers. To expect that outcome was completely delusional. We knew the resistance wouldn't come from an organized army but from guerrilla fighters.

[Jenksismyhero]

Bush I and his administration wrote about why they weren't going in to Baghdad back in '91. They predicted that exactly what is happening now would happen. It would be a disaster.

 

Just about every event in recent history, along with a knowledge of all of the regional conflicts and power struggles withing the country, pointed to a disaster and not sunshine and flowers. To expect that outcome was completely delusional. We knew the resistance wouldn't come from an organized army but from guerrilla fighters.

 

It's f*cking war man, of course it's not all sunshine and flowers. They never came out and said 'hey everyone, we're going to war and guess what, no one will die! Nope, not a single soul. That's right, we're waging a war and can promise that not one person will lose their life, great right?'

 

Just because YOU might have thought that doesn't mean the rest of the country did.

 

I didn't realize they were taking your opinions into consideration before the invasion.

 

So it's ok for normal citizens like yourself or SS or whoever to say that military professionals were wrong in their preperation from the war? Geez, I didn't know you had to be an expert at everything to have an opinion. I mean I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night but...

[StrangeSox]

It's f*cking war man, of course it's not all sunshine and flowers. They never came out and said 'hey everyone, we're going to war and guess what, no one will die! Nope, not a single soul. That's right, we're waging a war and can promise that not one person will lose their life, great right?'

 

Just because YOU might have thought that doesn't mean the rest of the country did.

 

Plenty of experts did think that. They were ignored or fired.

 

This war was presented as a stroll in the park to Americans. That mindset was just completely and totally wrong and they should have (and easily could have) realized that well before any invasion began.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's f*cking war man, of course it's not all sunshine and flowers. They never came out and said 'hey everyone, we're going to war and guess what, no one will die! Nope, not a single soul. That's right, we're waging a war and can promise that not one person will lose their life, great right?'

 

Just because YOU might have thought that doesn't mean the rest of the country did.

So it's ok for normal citizens like yourself or SS or whoever to say that military professionals were wrong in their preperation from the war? Geez, I didn't know you had to be an expert at everything to have an opinion. I mean I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night but...

Other than the strawman in the corner, no one is saying we were told this would be a zero-casualty war. But the fact is this administration heard any number of their own experts tell them this war would be a nightmare, that we needed 500k troops and that we couldnt do it while Afghanistan was going on, etc. And they decided to listen to the small minority (led mostly by Rumsfeld) who said it could be done with less and very easily. Military doctrine followed, and the experts we silenced or removed.

 

Just look at Desert Storm. That administration, that JC and that military took the approach of over-preparing, building a real consortium of support, prepared for the worst case scenarios, and told the public to expect the worst. And, they knew better than to invade Iraq proper. And most of the experts agreed with those principles until Rummy and Cheney ovverrode them (Rummy to prove his own points, and Cheney as an easier political sell).