I cannot speak too highly of The Democratic Peace. Understand the Democratic Peace and you will understand the Bush Administration.
And some how this web site conveniently forgets all the people who were killed in Vietnam, Cuba, El Salvador, Chile, Argentine, Iran,... under supervision of governments controlled by USA and with help of local CIA agents and local death squads trained in school of America.
Poor Irqis and their children are the victims for oil madness Any invation will have associated costs and the cost will keep rising day by day. It is NOT a liberation infact it is an invasion
Now, and in no concerted fashion, if we are to believe Major General Batiste, former Commander of 1st Infrantry, Iraq, other generals have come forward to echo those of Gens. Shinseki and Newbold, the thrust of the initial post of this thread. Now, these respected, loyal, and decorated "old soldiers" have come fully forward and condemned Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's handling of this debacle: Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander of U.S. Forces, Middle East: Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, former commander of the 82nd Airborne Division: This is no "liberal rant." I am a veteran myself and these generals are not flower children. It is getting harder and harder to dismiss the views of this vast swath of America that is saying, in a growing voice, that we are heading down the wrong road. The handling of this war, and the blood being shed of America's finest young men and women, is being shed with, as General Newbold terms it, "a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results." We can stick our heads in the sand, or see the truth of what is. This war was started on flimsy evidence, in fulfillment of some arrogant presumption of mission; and this most precious resource we have - the lives of our armed servicemen and women - has been thrown into a debacle of shoddy planning. I believe President "Bring 'em on" Bush has betrayed them, and us, and this regime needs to be held accountable.
Let's be careful here. We're getting close to dangerously mixing several debates. We don't want to allow ourselves to accidentally intermingle the "Must we be in this war?" debate with the "How should we run this portion of this war?" debate. You can be for* the the war on terrorism and the liberation of Iraq and still find flaw with specific personalities, strategies, and tactics. * As much as any sane person can be "for" any war. Sane people are not "for" war, they are just for war as opposed to things that are worse.
The two are inextricably intermingled. This war was a mistake from the start. It was begun for all the wrong reasons, and this administration needs to be held accountable. Generals are loyal soldiers, who execute the command from civilian authority; we of the civilian citizenry do not owe the same subordination. I should say here that I was among the first to decry the protestors in Chicago when this whole thing began (archives in the Chicago Tribune would bear this out). But I believe we were lied to, and I want this administration held accountable for it. Now that we are there: we must stay, unfortunately, or the cost will be greater than if we never started this mess. But let the generals run it. Get rid of the Secretary. And get rid of this administration.
You can run a very bad war very well. For example, the early German actions in Western Europe in WWII. You can run a very good war very poorly. For example, LBJ and McNamara's disastrous mismanagement of our failed attempt to save South Vietnam. Iraq was and is a good war where we have made many good and many bad decisions. This is to be expected. War is a human activity where the unexpected is the norm. We are in combat with an intelligent and resourceful enemy. This isn't paint by numbers. To say "some things have gone wrong" or "we have made mistakes" is always going to be true. Try to remember what a disaster D-Day was due to errors, misjudgements, and miscalculations too numerous to mention. Then remember how it lead to victory in the European theater.
OK, my view: Bad war, run badly. I believe that until we realize this cannot be won, clubfistedly, with the hammer of war, but rather by addressing the roots causes of the enmity against us, we will see continuing bloodshed.
And even that breaks down into sub-topics. For example, some people are opposed to the entire war on terrorism and other people are opposed merely to the Iraqi front. And even those opposed to the war on terrorism are split. Some think we should surrender and others think that the war is just made up and doesn't really exist outside of the range of TV news cameras. Indeed, there are thousands of sub-groups of thought about how to deal with the modern world. They diverge early on, right in the perception stage. No one has yet taken a critical eye to this post. Why don't you have a run at it and see if you can straighten me out?
The Bush adminstration and ignorant American public have insured we will continue to be attacked and targeted by terrorists for the rest of our lives.
Iraq war is generally viewed as a bad decision. What are the good decisions you are talking about? Oh sorry the good decesions include 1. Kill as many Iraqis as possible 2. Make sure all oil fields are in full controll, etc.
Bahahahahahahaha! George W. Bush was 26 years old when the Islamists attacked the Munich Olympics. He must have been quite a prodigy to have been responsible for that at such a young age.
I wouldn't even call removing Saddam from power a good decision. Without a viable solution to control the chaos that would ensue without a government and leader, like we've already seen. The people went from being controlled to being thrown into complete anarchy.
1. Generally viewed by whom? 2. At one time, the "general view" was that tomatoes was poisonous. How is the "general view" relevant to the truth?
You're just trolling now. Thats not nice, I don't like your poor behavior. Read what I said. I didn't say Bush was responsible for all terrorism. I said he's insured (along with an ignorant american public that allowed him) that terrorists WOULD CONTINUE to attack us for the rest of our lives. He's also created a whole lot more reasons for terrorism to occur, and a lot more people who will want revenge on us for their murdered families.
You just don't like having the complete lack of reason in your arguments pointed out so clearly. We had terrorism before Bush, we are likely to have terrorism after Bush. Blaming George W. Bush for terrorism is like blaming him for the weather. Oh wait... are you one of the people that thinks that George W. Bush and the CIA caused Hurricaine Katrina?
Please stop trolling. I don't appreciate your harrassment and abusive behavior towards me. And your assumptions are completely false, I've never said anything about anyone causing Katrina.
I just gave you few examples of good decisions At one time, the "General view" was that Iraqis were safe