Thank Clinton for a speedy victory in Ir aq

“I thank Klinton for turning stratdewd into a rather entertaining fellow.

Its always(well, usually) a real hoot to watch crazed people and their antics.

countless hours of top notch entertainment!”

“I'll be the first to concede that the WHOLE govenment was much more effective while Clinton was President because there was balance, and the WHOLE government worked together on a lot of issues.

Now with everything basically under Republican control too many things are going in the crapper...

Balance is the key in all things”

“IMHO, budgets and deficits are minor when compared to foreign diplomacy tact. Clinton had tons, Bush Jr. has none. As powerful as we THINK we are, we're nothing without the support of the rest of the world. Anyone who thinks differently should get out of the country more often and see how many people in the world we've pissed off since Bush took over office. His approval ratings may be decent here in the US, but throughout the world my guess is they're around 2%.”

“Wow. I didn't have to post one strat-correction on this thread!

It's like a day off. Thanks, Ped!”

“LOL Phade.
If it wsn't for TT, Strat would prolly still be in the 33% that believes they've already found conclusive evidence that WMD was in Iraq after the invasion.

(I still think they will find something - but I'm also very on guard for something phonied up)”

“Knigal? Where's Knigal?”

“Knigal? Where's Knigal?”

“Kwhat? Kwhat?”

“pedxing:

Regardless of our difference in opinion (party wise), I respect you for the final comment you made in that last post. I'm not sure if anyone will ever find WMD in Iraq, but I'm not about to prematurely slam Bush for "making things up" in regards to WMD in Iraq without conclusive evidence. I took the same approach with the whole Clinton/Monica situation so IMO it's only fair that I take the same approach in this matter.

Time will tell the truth my friend...time always tells...”

“Cut the budget while at the same time use the military more...sound logical?

Washington Post 8/13/98 Bradley Graham and Eric Pianin-- "The Marine Corps is using retreads on its armored vehicles. Rising numbers of Air Force and Navy jet fighters are being grounded by spare-parts shortages and maintenance backlogs, and pilots fed up with repeated duty in the Persian Gulf are bailing out of military service in droves. At Army training facilities, commanders report that units arriving for exercises have shakier combat skills than in years past. Throughout the military, there is mounting evidence of erosion in America's combat strength and troop morale. A decade of downsizing and reduced post-Cold War defense spending has coincided with a sharp jump in the number of troop deployments to Bosnia, the Middle East and elsewhere, straining the armed forces in ways unseen since the last wave of defense budget cuts after the Vietnam War

Washington Times 9/10/98 Rowan Scaraborough-- "The commander for all Army forces in the United States warns in an internal memo that "we can no longer train and sustain the force" under current defense spending and says "this threatens our ability to mobilize, deploy, fight and win."

AP 9/29/98-- "The nation's top general said today that without more pay, benefits and new equipment, America's undersupplied and overworked military will go into ``a nosedive'' and suffer irreparable damage...Shelton said. ``The best tanks, planes and ships in the world are not what make our military the superb force that it is today. ... Our people are more important than hardware."

Clinton continued a 10 year decline in military spending that started in the last part of Reagan's admin. Career servicemen left the military disillusioned. You can't thank Clinton for a speedy victory. You can't thank President Bush. You can thank the military men who did what had to be done, made do with what they had, produced a stunning victory, and drove on. Play the blame game all you want, but when the rubber hits the road, it's the fighting men who take care of business.”

“Thanks SPT.

Stickamn: You're right about who should really get the thanks. I took the thread title from Korb's editorial (the one that started this thread). I thought it was fascinating that Korb would use a title like that.”

“Stunning victory?

It was a can't-lose war over a less than third rate "army".”

“against, not over”

“The bullets coming out of the guns of that third rate army could kill as quick as the ones coming out of ours, and the war was fought on their home turf. The fact that we beat them like a drum is more proof of what a good job our military did. You might say our military was so good we took the fight out of them before we even had boots on the ground. You can chalk it up to a weak foe, I chalk it up to the best military in the world.”

“I'm not saying they soldiers didn't do a good job, but it is like putting Lennox Lewis in the ring with a five-year-old child. Of course the US was going to win. Keeping spending at cold war levels is stupid. Bases needed to be closed and cuts needed to be made. Where things did go wrong was that while cuts were made there was not the necessary reform to cater for that. And all senior military staff hate reform - look at the fuss Rumsfeld's efforts at reford caused before the war. America no longer faces the massed armies of the Warsaw pact, the threat of fleets of soviet bombers, submarines and missiles. The threat comes from small groups. Money should be spent more wisely and targetted better. If republicans hate taxes so much, why are they willing to spend so much on a military which has no real enemy. Spend more than the next 15 nations combined, and I think that figure is rising.
The money is being spent to allow an agressive foreign police of pre-emtive war, to allow the attack of other countries with limited, and one day no, casualties.”

“BTW: Does anyone know who Lawrence Korb is? (Besides being the guy who wrote the "Thank Clinton for a speedy victory in Iraq")

Funny how no one seemed curious.”

“Can we get a report on the logistical data of the Chinese and North Korean military?”

“Its better to be prepared. To be a step ahead of the bad guys. Look what happens when you are not prepared.”

“I'm not saying don't be prepared, but the US military would kick butt before huge amounts of extra cash were spent. I'd rather have the cash go to homeland security, the coastguard, city police chiefs and other security measures than on military equipment which will likely never be used. China, well America could never attack China anyway, 1) their army is too big, and 2) the have nukes. But should a skirmish result then the US would still win, and China knows it. North Korea, well the US would kick their butt too if it came down to it, that's why they want nukes to add to all that 50s artillery pointed at Seoul. What need to be created, as outlined by Rumsfeld is a smaller more professional military, flexible enough to deal with the new threat of terrorism, small-scale wars and peacekeeping. not an unweildy cold war beast with huge bases around the world.”

“I think we need both. You need to have that presence to deal with these countries. Sometime sheer size is all you need.”

“Isn’t Korb one of those Illuminati, New World Order, Masonic, Trilateral
Commission, One World Government types?”

“prolly so Viol Man! LOL!”

“I can see the military needs to be strong, but America's power in military, economic, cultural, is as great as it's ever been. There's never been a single power like the US. America is far ahead of virtually all of its potential enemies combined, this is without the additional spending of which the benefit will only come further down the road. But I guess having a huge military and increasing spending on it is less of a worry than not spending enough.”

“Well put, ynami.

You said in three posts, what I tried to say in one sentence.

America has far more war-making capacity than any other country in the world has or will ever have.

Still, the U.S. cannot afford to wage a major war(which this one is/was not).

A long term occupation, with its on-going problems and casualties and re-building, can break the bank in more ways than one.

Furthermore, bragging and victory dancing are awfully unbecoming and damaging to foreign relations.”

“my left show is untied.......coincedence?



















yeah, it is actually....”

“Well obviously you should pay it more attention or it'll trip you up again.”

“What flag are you waving? Well put my ass! Should we take down all ours flags? Who cares what they think. You really think they give a crap about us! Demilitarizing the US will have its consequences. Taking certain powers away from the CIA has in consequences. The past should be an example of that. Were we prepare in the past? Most of the time no and we were lucky not to be speaking a different language now. It appears some of you welcome that change.”

“The US became the most powerful country, because of our military and economic power.

Being a nice guy is not a viable global strategy.”

“I agree bacpac. We Yankys have a hard time thinking outside of our own boarders sometimes and we don't really realize that in many cultures a willingness to kick the Shat out of someone is the only way to gain respect. Have no doubts, the Iraqis still hate us but they definitly respect us. Call me a hawk if you will but sometimes ya gotta roll up the newspaper and smack the rowdies on the nose. I feel our military might under such guys as Clinton looks like nothing more than a paper tiger.”

“Being a nice guy is not a viable global strategery?

And so bullying is a viable global strategy?

That kind of attitude has brought ruin to more than a few empires.”

“Bullying! Saddam was bullying! Your actions in a Global environment will have its consequences. The slap on the wrist doesn't work in today's world. And the empires you site were conquers. I don't see Baghdad as US tourist spot in the near future. Nor are they paying taxes to the US.”

“I didn't say anything about bullying Tom. Those are your communist words. LOL!”

“Communist words?

When all else fails, say the magic word....."communist"”

“You guys don't seem to be able to see the difference between an effective military and an excessive military.
And American foreign policy is about bullying, whether you like to think that or not. Looks at Bush's words, 'America and other countires will not tolerate nuclear weapons in Iran'. If that's not a threat then I don't know what is.
Bullying is fine, and is a means to get what you want in the short-term. But the implications for long term and America's standing in the world are something else.”

“Blah Blah Blah What are your ideas of a future standing US? What effects do you think this will have? Should we allow Iran to have Nukes?”

“No, Iran shouldn't have nukes, but I think that by persuing them agrresively you actually increase the need for them to have nukes. I think Iran in particular was on the verge of reforms and the clerics were losing influence. Now their hand is being forced.
Ask yourself this, if you were in the Iranian leadership what would be the one thing you could do to stop American interference and the threat of invasion? The policy may be successful and they may cave in, but the other option is doing all they can to get nuclear weapons.
This administration seems to want to push things and take risks. You keep taking enough risks and sooner or later you lose.
And future standing. Well there will come a time when America needs support from the rest of the world, and they could find co-operation lacking. You don't know what's round the corner.

Don't get me wrong, I think the policies being followed are very brave, and if they work then I will give Bush all the credit he will deserve. But he's taking huge risks with people's lives.”

“And tell me this - if no WMDs are found, something looking increasingly likely, how is America any safter than bofore the invasion?”

“That is the same reason North Korea is trying to get nukes.
It is to prevent an invasion by, guess who?

Iran too is behaving like a cornered rat......they may bite.”

“"That is the same reason North Korea is trying to get nukes.
It is to prevent an invasion by, guess who?"

Bullshat Tom. They are using nukes as a blackmailing tool. This is evident in how Clinton gave in during his term. If you can't see that your next eye glass perscription should be a dog.”

“Of course they are using like that. But has the current policy been successful in dealing with this?”

“Instilling fear in the rat(N.Korea/Iran) does not guarantee cooperation.
Usually belligerence leads to more of the same.
Be nice Nigee!”

“How by us perusing them would it increase their need to have them? Come ON!! We are safer because we have a mad man out of power which had the financial backing to supply terrorist group with all the supplies they needed. North Korea would pursue Nukes regardless of what are situation was? And yes they are using nukes for a bargaining chip for a failing economy.”

“I think there's certainly an element of truth about North Korea, but I think Iran is a slightly different case. But again, Imagine you are a leader of one of the two remaining 'axis of evil' or even one of other potential entrants into the eqation. By getting nukes you effectively make an american invasion much more costly, and in some circumstances impossible. With dictatorships uinlikely to surrender meekly to US demands, then nuclear weapons are the best way of sucuring their hold on power.
I think the way this administration uses a bullying policy of thinly veiled threats causes more problems than it solves. There is a reason for diplomacy, and ok, have a strict policy on these countries, but don't insult them and threaten then in public - that gets you nowhere.”

“Seems to be doing fine!”

“But there are times when a hardy, "Fuk you. We won't play that game." can cause extreme enlightenment in the blackmailer and they have to back down and say, "Oh. OK then.". Korea is trying to switch rolls as if THEY are the ones with the carrot. Not true. If they want to behave this way fine, they should get zero from us and let their people starve. The decision lies with them. It is not our responsability to give hand outs to everyone no matter what they behave like.

You make it sound as if WE are the ones choosing not to play nice first.”

“I don't mean it to come across like that, but the Axis of Evil speech pre-empted the troubles in Korea. And certsainly there are times when saying FU is a good thing. But lets look at the amount of times that's happened in the short time this administration has been in power. Kyoto, ICC, International Chemical weapons treaty, steel trariff, insulting south American nations, Iraq, the United Nations, France, Germany, Russia in relation to iraq and the missile treaty, EU over genetic crops, Syria, Iran, Iraq, North Korea... the list goes on. Too much stick and not enough carrot - and that's without the United Nations.”

“Those troubles in Korea were there long before the speach. And yes who cares lets make that list bigger! Lead by example. Move aside you are in the way.”

“Strat: Once again you attack me with fractured facts (e.g. there was no surplus) and dissappear when confronted with the real facts.

This is why I challenge your credibility and criticize you for not looking into things or thinking them through.”

“Strat: This isn't an attack on your character. On a personal basis I think you are a very trustworthy decent guy - and would like to backpack with you some time.

But, your opinion/information quotient is sky high.”

“Might I pile on here? When I brought up some legitimate charges against Jeb and GW, Strat, your response was, "Well, it's obvious that you hate the Bush family". I don't personally know any of the Bushes, and I've read things about them that seem positive. It interests me that conservatives who are touting themselves as the true patriotic Americans can be so gung-ho about someone who used the government to take advantage of other people and yet are for "less government". I want to know why the same people who couldn't stop slamming our former president for being a draft-dodger can praise our current draft-dodger and AWOL president. Seems hypocritical to me.”