What is wrong with George Bush?

SOC

Sorry about the double posting, not sure how I manged to do that.

Regards,

kev35

SOC

“You can criticize my government all you want. Don’t be surprised if I fire back though. The problem I clearly had was that you were using relatively stupid arguments in my opinion, such as Bush is a bad President because he left Washington before the hurricane.”

OK, I can see your point. But more of that later. As you rightly say this has developed into something far more interesting. I think Hand made an interesting point in this regard. I have been brought up to form my own opinions, make my own mind up about world events. America always seem to stand pretty square behind its Government, to follow the leader as it were. That’s not how I feel, or many others. If I believe my Government is wrong I will say so. I owe that much to those who’ve gone before. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

“If the only way you can come up with a response is to take a reply I made to someone else completely out of context, do me a favor and just give up now.”

Sorry, can’t do that, I’m stubborn too. At least it provoked a response.

“Now when the hell did we say that this would be an immediate transfer of power? Iraq isn’t going to become the 51st state.”

Iraq already has become the 51st State, at least for the foreseeable future.

” If certain militant individuals would cease and desist they’d find we’d be out of their country a lot sooner. Does anyone choose to focus on that? No, they just want to complain that we’re still in Iraq.”

Fair enough. But with the most sophisticated military and intelligence agencies in the world at work in Iraq doesn’t the American public, and even more its armed forces, have the right to expect that resistance might be quelled quicker than it has?

“Do you really want us to pull out with the country the state it is in now? What’s wrong with wanting to establish a new government? Or have them draft a new constitution?”

If those are your aims it seems the Iraqi people are not satisfied with the rate of progress or their degree of involvement. If the people feel they are more involved and that Government is devolved to them the terrorists and Ba’athists have less support. The more disenfranchised the population are the more likely they are to support terrorism and resistance.

“The whole situation will be rectified. If it takes more time, at least nobody will be able to say we didn’t follow through with it. I still maintain that it would go a lot quicker if we didn’t have to duck and cover every time we walked outside.”

It might be rectified or you could be there for a very long time sustaining significant losses like the Russians in Afghanistan or even like Vietnam. America entered Vietnam with the best of intentions and bought home 50,00 filled body bags. I fear the same could happen in Iraq.

“Apparently some of us did, or we wouldn’t be there now. Again, if we leave them to it isn’t there going to be world outcry about the situation we left Iraq in? It seems this may be one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenarios. Pardon us for not taking the easy way out.”

But that’s partly the problem now, there is no longer an easy way out.

“The rest of the world still wishes to get involved. I have no idea why, given that they probably have a good idea that it kinda sucks to be in there right now. Oh that’s right, financial gain. But only we are ever accused of doing that. First we are criticized for not minding the wishes of others. Now we are criticized when we do. Can we ever do right in the eyes of the International Community? I find it amusing that since the meat of the fighting is over with, now the French want into Iraq. And others as well.”

Can’t comment about the French as I am not French. As for financial gain can you tell me how much American business stands to gain from the American presence in Iraq compared to other countries like Britain, France, Germany, or even Iraq? And the price for that financial gain is the deaths of American and British soldiers.

“Does France have any idea of the current situation? Is there a problem not wanting to agree to a set timetable when we don’t think it’s feasible in the current situation? If the French can come up with a sensible plan this time I’m sure we’d listen to it. Personally, since the UN had 12 years to solve the problem of Iraq, I think we should get the same.”

You may not think the Frech offer was feasible at this time, but is there any more dialogue? Is America prepared to listen to anyone. You say the UN had 12 years to solve the problem of Iraq, some would say America has had the same.

“Or could it be that there are many more US soldiers? Personally I’d rather none of them died, but that’s the way these people want it for some reason. There are Brits, Poles, Aussies, and a few others in there. But the majority presence is still American. Big surprise then that we get most of the casualties. We provide most of the targets.”

Not wholly convinced that’s the reason. Royal Marines in Basra were patrolling on foot and in Berets without helmets and body armour. Not in Bradley’s and Abrams’. The experience gained in patrolling in N. Ireland I would imagine has been invaluable. And yes I am aware that the British have sustained casualties, but hardly to the same extent. We hear of multiple attacks on American service personnel but rarely on British. As you say the British are there in much smaller numbers with possibly a more relaxed posture. If that is the case wouldn’t the seasoned terrorist find them a much simpler target?

“Think about it, it does seem to make a little sense. Foreign terrorists, or Iraqis loyal to Saddam who get sponsored by other unsavory organizations or nations, swarm to Iraq due to the security situation to lay into Americans since they also hate us. On one hand you can see our reluctance to leave. It keeps the nastiness way away from our borders, and we get to kill more terrorists as a result.”

That’s probably the most honest statement I’ve ever heard an American make about Iraq.

“As for France, they weren’t occupied, they were effectively conquered. Hitler wasn’t going to be giving up his farmland. We didn’t conquer Iraq, we took out the old regime and are trying to get the Iraqis moving in the direction of creating a new, stable one.”

But America is giving exactly the same impression. Six months on and you have massive military force in place yet the situation seems not to be improving at all.

“Well, they hid parts of their air force pretty damn well, and a MiG-25 isn’t a small aircraft. Ok, an Su-25 is, but still.”

Yes, and their burial has effectively destroyed them hasn’t it?

“If they buried the damn things we may never find them. There have been rumors that they were “exported” via Syria to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for burial and storage.”

If proved true then that would be a worrying development.

“If this is true, then the only reason we haven’t gone in and dug them up is we’d need to determine how to handle Syria first. We will probably be in Iraq as long as there is a terrorist threat, but we won’t need nearly the size we have in place now. Once the Iraqis train and get their own government and military arm going again they will be able to take care of themselves.”

But how much autonomy and democracy will you be willing to give the Iraqi’s? Do they need to subscribe to the “American way”? How much cultural influence will America impose on Iraq, albeit accidentally?

“Then we can pull out mostly and go back to hunting terrorists for execution. Is Iraq better than it was before? Well, Saddam hasn’t gassed or executed anyone for a while, and they now actually get an unbiased view of events through the media, as opposed to Mr. There Are No Americans In Baghdad.”

Yes, Saddam is gone but it seems the Iraqi’s want things to happen faster. Is it that difficult for a country with America’s wherewithal to reinstate essential services like water, electricity, health care and education?

“So there’s nothing wrong with protecting out own interests now? And the US war on terror is having an effect. When was the last incident of terrorism inside our border? As for Bin Laden, we’ll get him if we have to take apart Pakistan and Iran to do it. Of course, there’s no conclusive, 100% concrete evidence the man is still alive either…”

True he may be dead, bit it doesn’t really matter anymore does it? Alive he is an iconic figure with no shortage of followers. Dead, he is a martyr, same result. The last incidence of terrorism inside your own border was the anthrax situation, got anyone for that yet? Or was it the Washington sniper?

“I honestly have no clue. I’d like to think that he would be apprehended and sent to The Hague. Maybe if we’re “negotiating” we can get closer to him that way?”

Interesting change of attitude. Being hit by LGB’s and cruise missiles wouldn’t have sent him to the Hague. I hope he is caught, perhaps that will persuade the Iraqis things can improve.

“I have to say that what I still consider to be an asinine opening argument has sparked an interesting debate. This is probably the most effort I’ve put into a post on this board for a while.”

Yes, it’s hard work. Not sure whether I can say I enjoy it. At least some good has come of my asininity. I seem to remember you’ve made the odd turkey yourself.

Regards,

kev35

“OK, I can see your point. But more of that later. As you rightly say this has developed into something far more interesting. I think Hand made an interesting point in this regard. I have been brought up to form my own opinions, make my own mind up about world events. America always seem to stand pretty square behind its Government, to follow the leader as it were. That’s not how I feel, or many others. If I believe my Government is wrong I will say so. I owe that much to those who’ve gone before. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.”

I see where you’re coming from. In this instance I do support my government. But like I said before, I don’t just blindly support every government decision.

”Sorry, can’t do that, I’m stubborn too. At least it provoked a response.”

At least I’m paying attention 😀

”Iraq already has become the 51st State, at least for the foreseeable future.”

? When did they start paying taxes?

”Fair enough. But with the most sophisticated military and intelligence agencies in the world at work in Iraq doesn’t the American public, and even more its armed forces, have the right to expect that resistance might be quelled quicker than it has?”

Sure, I can certainly see why the American public would be irritated at our apparent snail-paced progress. But as a military member I can tell you that we weren’t built to fight this kind of war before. Given what we’ve had to deal with, I’d say we made a pretty damn good transition to this kind of warfare. But unfortunately the American public usually operates on a “what have you done for me lately” basis.

”If those are your aims it seems the Iraqi people are not satisfied with the rate of progress or their degree of involvement. If the people feel they are more involved and that Government is devolved to them the terrorists and Ba’athists have less support. The more disenfranchised the population are the more likely they are to support terrorism and resistance.”

Of course they aren’t satisfied. The point is that either we a) take time out to hunt down the terrorist asshats, or b) the people of Iraq stop supporting them, making everything a lot easier for everyone. Except the terrorist asshats, of course.

”It might be rectified or you could be there for a very long time sustaining significant losses like the Russians in Afghanistan or even like Vietnam. America entered Vietnam with the best of intentions and bought home 50,00 filled body bags. I fear the same could happen in Iraq.”

I doubt we’re talking those kind of losses. Remember, if they keep pushing, they won’t like what happens. Here’s a thought: give the Iraqis total power and then tell them we need like a few weeks to get everybody out of their new country (these things do not take place overnight). If we take one bullet during that time, declare war on Iraq and perform a sweep and clear.

”But that’s partly the problem now, there is no longer an easy way out.”

And that we aren’t allowed to ask for help.

SOC

“You can criticize my government all you want. Don’t be surprised if I fire back though. The problem I clearly had was that you were using relatively stupid arguments in my opinion, such as Bush is a bad President because he left Washington before the hurricane.”

OK, I can see your point. But more of that later. As you rightly say this has developed into something far more interesting. I think Hand made an interesting point in this regard. I have been brought up to form my own opinions, make my own mind up about world events. America always seem to stand pretty square behind its Government, to follow the leader as it were. That’s not how I feel, or many others. If I believe my Government is wrong I will say so. I owe that much to those who’ve gone before. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

“If the only way you can come up with a response is to take a reply I made to someone else completely out of context, do me a favor and just give up now.”

Sorry, can’t do that, I’m stubborn too. At least it provoked a response.

“Now when the hell did we say that this would be an immediate transfer of power? Iraq isn’t going to become the 51st state.”

Iraq already has become the 51st State, at least for the foreseeable future.

” If certain militant individuals would cease and desist they’d find we’d be out of their country a lot sooner. Does anyone choose to focus on that? No, they just want to complain that we’re still in Iraq.”

Fair enough. But with the most sophisticated military and intelligence agencies in the world at work in Iraq doesn’t the American public, and even more its armed forces, have the right to expect that resistance might be quelled quicker than it has?

“Do you really want us to pull out with the country the state it is in now? What’s wrong with wanting to establish a new government? Or have them draft a new constitution?”

If those are your aims it seems the Iraqi people are not satisfied with the rate of progress or their degree of involvement. If the people feel they are more involved and that Government is devolved to them the terrorists and Ba’athists have less support. The more disenfranchised the population are the more likely they are to support terrorism and resistance.

“The whole situation will be rectified. If it takes more time, at least nobody will be able to say we didn’t follow through with it. I still maintain that it would go a lot quicker if we didn’t have to duck and cover every time we walked outside.”

It might be rectified or you could be there for a very long time sustaining significant losses like the Russians in Afghanistan or even like Vietnam. America entered Vietnam with the best of intentions and bought home 50,00 filled body bags. I fear the same could happen in Iraq.

“Apparently some of us did, or we wouldn’t be there now. Again, if we leave them to it isn’t there going to be world outcry about the situation we left Iraq in? It seems this may be one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenarios. Pardon us for not taking the easy way out.”

But that’s partly the problem now, there is no longer an easy way out.

The rest of the world still wishes to get involved. I have no idea why, given that they probably have a good idea that it kinda sucks to be in there right now. Oh that’s right, financial gain. But only we are ever accused of doing that. First we are criticized for not minding the wishes of others. Now we are criticized when we do. Can we ever do right in the eyes of the International Community? I find it amusing that since the meat of the fighting is over with, now the French want into Iraq. And others as well.

”I see your point. Has it occurred to you that the Iraqi people might not want anyone there. The French, bless their souls, suggested handing power to the Iraqis within a year. America denied that on the grounds that Iraqis can’t look after themselves. America welcomes UN involvement as long as an American remains in overall control.”

Does France have any idea of the current situation? Is there a problem not wanting to agree to a set timetable when we don’t think it’s feasible in the current situation? If the French can come up with a sensible plan this time I’m sure we’d listen to it. Personally, since the UN had 12 years to solve the problem of Iraq, I think we should get the same.

“Ok, first of all my limited understanding is that the British bear much of the responsibility for the situation in Palestine. However I didn’t see America offering Texas as a Jewish homeland either. As for Israel being the “do no wrong” state of the moment you have never heard me say that.”

I didn’t say you said that, it was a statement on the current political climate in, sadly, Washington, as well as the rest of the world. And there was no reason for anyone to offer them a Jewish homeland. What basis did they have for it? The regime that terrorized them was obliterated. And we wouldn’t have offered up Texas because we had Americans living there. Same as how the British probably shouldn’t have offered up an area which already had its own population.

”British soldiers are dying in Iraq. Had you forgotten they were there? As a military man can you explain why the British are being attacked far less than their US counterparts. Is it because of this ‘Shi’ite triangle’? Or is it because the British have a vastly different attitude to patrolling in cities?”

Or could it be that there are many more US soldiers? Personally I’d rather none of them died, but that’s the way these people want it for some reason. There are Brits, Poles, Aussies, and a few others in there. But the majority presence is still American. Big surprise then that we get most of the casualties. We provide most of the targets.

”During World War 2 many French people were ‘unhappy’ at being occupied, it was only a small percentage though who actively resisted. Foreign terrorists are making the attacks, ok, where’s your evidence?”

Think about it, it does seem to make a little sense. Foreign terrorists, or Iraqis loyal to Saddam who get sponsored by other unsavory organizations or nations, swarm to Iraq due to the security situation to lay into Americans since they also hate us. On one hand you can see our reluctance to leave. It keeps the nastiness way away from our borders, and we get to kill more terrorists as a result. As for France, they weren’t occupied, they were effectively conquered. Hitler wasn’t going to be giving up his farmland. We didn’t conquer Iraq, we took out the old regime and are trying to get the Iraqis moving in the direction of creating a new, stable one.

”The whole idea was to give Iraq to the Iraqis, and to find the as yet undiscovered weapons of mass destruction. Which the British Government decided could be launched within 45 minutes. They must have hidden them damn well. The US Government now says they will need to maintain a presence there for many years. Have you really just swopped one oppressor for another? Look at an Iraqi in Baghdad, have conditions really changed that much? Is the ordinary Iraqi being given an opportunity to express their views democratically? As for your fourth point I can think of a myriad of world problems for which America bears no responsibility, why do you insist on taking the blame?”

Well, they hid parts of their air force pretty damn well, and a MiG-25 isn’t a small aircraft. Ok, an Su-25 is, but still. If they buried the damn things we may never find them. There have been rumors that they were “exported” via Syria to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for burial and storage. If this is true, then the only reason we haven’t gone in and dug them up is we’d need to determine how to handle Syria first. We will probably be in Iraq as long as there is a terrorist threat, but we won’t need nearly the size we have in place now. Once the Iraqis train and get their own government and military arm going again they will be able to take care of themselves. Then we can pull out mostly and go back to hunting terrorists for execution. Is Iraq better than it was before? Well, Saddam hasn’t gassed or executed anyone for a while, and they now actually get an unbiased view of events through the media, as opposed to Mr. There Are No Americans In Baghdad. And it’s not that we insist on taking the blame, others just seem willing to arbitrarily assign it to us.

”If you’re going to protect your own best interests then might it not be an idea to catch Osama Bin Laden? There is no evidence that you have caught him, or that your war on terrorism is having a huge effect. Repeated attacks in Iraq, attacks in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Nairobi. Ok, each suicide bombing kills at least one terrorist, but still they make attacks.”

So there’s nothing wrong with protecting out own interests now? And the US war on terror is having an effect. When was the last incident of terrorism inside our border? As for Bin Laden, we’ll get him if we have to take apart Pakistan and Iran to do it. Of course, there’s no conclusive, 100% concrete evidence the man is still alive either…

”Finally, there were some reports in the British press at the weekend that Saddam is negotiating with America for a new life in Russia. I understand that being in the military you can’t actually tell us what you know or don’t know. But in your personal opinion do you think there is the possibility of any truth in these reports?”

I honestly have no clue. I’d like to think that he would be apprehended and sent to The Hague. Maybe if we’re “negotiating” we can get closer to him that way?

I have to say that what I still consider to be an asinine opening argument has sparked an interesting debate. This is probably the most effort I’ve put into a post on this board for a while. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by PhantomII
I’ve been following these arguments, and I smell a double standard on the Eastern side of the Atlantic….

No! You shouldn’t have gone there! By identifying yourself as being a “Westerner” you automatically will be ridiculed and your opinions cast aside!

😀

I’ve been following these arguments, and I smell a double standard on the Eastern side of the Atlantic….

Originally posted by Zippo
Kev35, you had it coming!

Here you have two specimens who have no ideology other than:
“Ein Reich, ein Folk, ein Bush-Feuer”
So, you trying to argue with these people is futile, especially the one with the shorter posts and obviously the less brains.They are not interested in engaging in arguments, all they do is bark and foam around the mouth, about how good the U.S is and how stupid the rest of the world is.
Why go starting a thread like that, in the first place?
Enjoy talking to a wall?

Regards

This is what I mean. Excuse me for having an opinion. Obviously if it is pro-European around here it is an argument, but if it is pro-American it constitutes barking and foaming at the mouth. Where did I say that America was better or smarter than anyone else? The issues I had were directed towards specific comments. Really, I want to know where I said that.

“Your xenophobic hatred of anyone who even considers criticising your Government is all too clear. Politically correct? Of course not, wouldn’t expect you to be. Your opinion is that America is always right, can do no wrong, will not even admit to the slightest little bit of criticism being correct. It must be wonderful to have so much faith in your leadership. Whatever the outcome of their decisions, even when its victims are your own soldiers. I have great respect for people who join the armed forces and can’t understand why any Government would be so eager to waste their lives in this way.”

You can criticize my government all you want. Don’t be surprised if I fire back though. The problem I clearly had was that you were using relatively stupid arguments in my opinion, such as Bush is a bad President because he left Washington before the hurricane. And I never said America was always right. On the contrary, I find fault with a lot of the things we do, namely our support of Israel for one. The problem I see is that so many people like to find America always wrong.

”At last, you now admit it is all about oil.”

If the only way you can come up with a response is to take a reply I made to someone else completely out of context, do me a favor and just give up now.

”I thought the idea was to let the Iraqis take over wasn’t it?”

Now when the hell did we say that this would be an immediate transfer of power? Iraq isn’t going to become the 51st state. If certain militant individuals would cease and desist they’d find we’d be out of their country a lot sooner. Does anyone choose to focus on that? No, they just want to complain that we’re still in Iraq. Do you really want us to pull out with the country the state it is in now? What’s wrong with wanting to establish a new government? Or have them draft a new constitution? If the issue is occupation of Iraq, then the debate in the UN is really pointless, isn’t it? They’d have no right to be there either. If it’s good enough for the UN to go in, we may as well stay put. They wanted to screw around on the issue in the first place.

”No, that’s not what I want. Pull them all out and leave them to it. Iraqis demonstrate in the street at their dissatisfaction over ‘progress’ being made, or not, as the case may be. The situation is muddied when the Americans recruit Iraqi policemen and then shoot them. US patrols are attacked every day by Iraqis who are dissatisfied by their presence. The whole situation is a mess and is not going to be rectified for many, many years. Even George Bush Sr. said last week it would go on for years.”

The whole situation will be rectified. If it takes more time, at least nobody will be able to say we didn’t follow through with it. I still maintain that it would go a lot quicker if we didn’t have to duck and cover every time we walked outside.

”I appreciate that, I think it would tend to make you more than a little uncomfortable. Again, the forces have my respect.”

Fortunately we have more guns. Unfortunately we are having a hard time lining people up and differentiating between friend and foe based on visual inspection 😀

”Leave them to it then your soldiers are not in danger. America had no qualms about leaving Iraq alone for twelve years after abandoning the Kurds.”

Apparently some of us did, or we wouldn’t be there now. Again, if we leave them to it isn’t there going to be world outcry about the situation we left Iraq in? It seems this may be one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenarios. Pardon us for not taking the easy way out.

”Not complaining, just pointing out the fact that after telling the rest of the world that you were going it alone you now seek help as the situation deteriorates.”

The rest of the world still wishes to get involved. I have no idea why, given that they probably have a good idea that it kinda sucks to be in there right now. Oh that’s right, financial gain. But only we are ever accused of doing that. First we are criticized for not minding the wishes of others. Now we are criticized when we do. Can we ever do right in the eyes of the International Community? I find it amusing that since the meat of the fighting is over with, now the French want into Iraq. And others as well.

”I see your point. Has it occurred to you that the Iraqi people might not want anyone there. The French, bless their souls, suggested handing power to the Iraqis within a year. America denied that on the grounds that Iraqis can’t look after themselves. America welcomes UN involvement as long as an American remains in overall control.”

Does France have any idea of the current situation? Is there a problem not wanting to agree to a set timetable when we don’t think it’s feasible in the current situation? If the French can come up with a sensible plan this time I’m sure we’d listen to it. Personally, since the UN had 12 years to solve the problem of Iraq, I think we should get the same.

“Ok, first of all my limited understanding is that the British bear much of the responsibility for the situation in Palestine. However I didn’t see America offering Texas as a Jewish homeland either. As for Israel being the “do no wrong” state of the moment you have never heard me say that.”

I didn’t say you said that, it was a statement on the current political climate in, sadly, Washington, as well as the rest of the world. And there was no reason for anyone to offer them a Jewish homeland. What basis did they have for it? The regime that terrorized them was obliterated. And we wouldn’t have offered up Texas because we had Americans living there. Same as how the British probably shouldn’t have offered up an area which already had its own population.

”British soldiers are dying in Iraq. Had you forgotten they were there? As a military man can you explain why the British are being attacked far less than their US counterparts. Is it because of this ‘Shi’ite triangle’? Or is it because the British have a vastly different attitude to patrolling in cities?”

Or could it be that there are many more US soldiers? Personally I’d rather none of them died, but that’s the way these people want it for some reason. There are Brits, Poles, Aussies, and a few others in there. But the majority presence is still American. Big surprise then that we get most of the casualties. We provide most of the targets.

”During World War 2 many French people were ‘unhappy’ at being occupied, it was only a small percentage though who actively resisted. Foreign terrorists are making the attacks, ok, where’s your evidence?”

Think about it, it does seem to make a little sense. Foreign terrorists, or Iraqis loyal to Saddam who get sponsored by other unsavory organizations or nations, swarm to Iraq due to the security situation to lay into Americans since they also hate us. On one hand you can see our reluctance to leave. It keeps the nastiness way away from our borders, and we get to kill more terrorists as a result. As for France, they weren’t occupied, they were effectively conquered. Hitler wasn’t going to be giving up his farmland. We didn’t conquer Iraq, we took out the old regime and are trying to get the Iraqis moving in the direction of creating a new, stable one.

”The whole idea was to give Iraq to the Iraqis, and to find the as yet undiscovered weapons of mass destruction. Which the British Government decided could be launched within 45 minutes. They must have hidden them damn well. The US Government now says they will need to maintain a presence there for many years. Have you really just swopped one oppressor for another? Look at an Iraqi in Baghdad, have conditions really changed that much? Is the ordinary Iraqi being given an opportunity to express their views democratically? As for your fourth point I can think of a myriad of world problems for which America bears no responsibility, why do you insist on taking the blame?”

Well, they hid parts of their air force pretty damn well, and a MiG-25 isn’t a small aircraft. Ok, an Su-25 is, but still. If they buried the damn things we may never find them. There have been rumors that they were “exported” via Syria to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for burial and storage. If this is true, then the only reason we haven’t gone in and dug them up is we’d need to determine how to handle Syria first. We will probably be in Iraq as long as there is a terrorist threat, but we won’t need nearly the size we have in place now. Once the Iraqis train and get their own government and military arm going again they will be able to take care of themselves. Then we can pull out mostly and go back to hunting terrorists for execution. Is Iraq better than it was before? Well, Saddam hasn’t gassed or executed anyone for a while, and they now actually get an unbiased view of events through the media, as opposed to Mr. There Are No Americans In Baghdad. And it’s not that we insist on taking the blame, others just seem willing to arbitrarily assign it to us.

”If you’re going to protect your own best interests then might it not be an idea to catch Osama Bin Laden? There is no evidence that you have caught him, or that your war on terrorism is having a huge effect. Repeated attacks in Iraq, attacks in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Nairobi. Ok, each suicide bombing kills at least one terrorist, but still they make attacks.”

So there’s nothing wrong with protecting out own interests now? And the US war on terror is having an effect. When was the last incident of terrorism inside our border? As for Bin Laden, we’ll get him if we have to take apart Pakistan and Iran to do it. Of course, there’s no conclusive, 100% concrete evidence the man is still alive either…

”Finally, there were some reports in the British press at the weekend that Saddam is negotiating with America for a new life in Russia. I understand that being in the military you can’t actually tell us what you know or don’t know. But in your personal opinion do you think there is the possibility of any truth in these reports?”

I honestly have no clue. I’d like to think that he would be apprehended and sent to The Hague. Maybe if we’re “negotiating” we can get closer to him that way?

I have to say that what I still consider to be an asinine opening argument has sparked an interesting debate. This is probably the most effort I’ve put into a post on this board for a while.

SOC.

Your xenophobic hatred of anyone who even considers criticising your Government is all too clear. Politically correct? Of course not, wouldn’t expect you to be. Your opinion is that America is always right, can do no wrong, will not even admit to the slightest little bit of criticism being correct. It must be wonderful to have so much faith in your leadership. Whatever the outcome of their decisions, even when its victims are your own soldiers. I have great respect for people who join the armed forces and can’t understand why any Government would be so eager to waste their lives in this way.

“So you’re saying that the United States should ignore what’s in its own best interests and give in to the rest of the world? I understand.”

At last, you now admit it is all about oil.

“I know, let France and Germany take over.”

I thought the idea was to let the Iraqis take over wasn’t it?

“That’s what you all want anyway, isn’t it? For France, Germany, and the rest of Europe to give the US the finger by going in and saving the day in Iraq, and getting rich in the process? At least then we can all gripe and complain when progress hasn’t been made after six months. No wait, that won’t happen, it’ll be America’s fault for turning over power too soon!”

No, that’s not what I want. Pull them all out and leave them to it. Iraqis demonstrate in the street at their dissatisfaction over ‘progress’ being made, or not, as the case may be. The situation is muddied when the Americans recruit Iraqi policemen and then shoot them. US patrols are attacked every day by Iraqis who are dissatisfied by their presence. The whole situation is a mess and is not going to be rectified for many, many years. Even George Bush Sr. said last week it would go on for years.

JFK once made a speech about the Apollo missions. “Why go to the moon? Why go to the moon and do the other thing? Not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” The other thing turned out to be Vietnam. Can you not see you are in danger of falling into that situation again?

“Uncomfortable in Iraq? Sorry for getting shot at almost daily. That kinda tends to make one a little uncomfortable.”

I appreciate that, I think it would tend to make you more than a little uncomfortable. Again, the forces have my respect.

“I just hope we start taking a more proactive effort to weed out all the asshats who want to ruin the situation for everyone. Seek and destroy. If that doesn’t work, slash and burn. Let the rest of the world complain that we are unfairly trying to protect the lives of our soldiers.”

Leave them to it then your soldiers are not in danger. America had no qualms about leaving Iraq alone for twelve years after abandoning the Kurds.

“Asking for UN intervention? And you choose to complain? The world badgers us and we decide to seek the UNs help, like France and others wanted in the first place, and now you complain that we are asking for UN intervention.”

Not complaining, just pointing out the fact that after telling the rest of the world that you were going it alone you now seek help as the situation deteriorates.

“Good idea. The last bomb was directed at the UN compound in Baghdad. I guess that means the UN has no business there either. And it also means that when civilians are intentionally being targeted, there is terrorism present! Since there is terrorism present, pulling our military out and leaving the civilian administrators in there to get things moving would be very stupid.”

I see your point. Has it occurred to you that the Iraqi people might not want anyone there. The French, bless their souls, suggested handing power to the Iraqis within a year. America denied that on the grounds that Iraqis can’t look after themselves. America welcomes UN involvement as long as an American remains in overall control.

“If you want US soldiers out of Iraq since they are dying at the hands of Islamic terrorism, you should be supportive of Israeli soldiers getting completely out of Palestinian territories for the same reason. Sorry, nevermind, I forgot Israel is the “can do no wrong” state of the moment. Even though some idiot Brits put the Jewish people in Palestine in the first place I bet we can still find a way to blame this one on the US of A!”

Ok, first of all my limited understanding is that the British bear much of the responsibility for the situation in Palestine. However I didn’t see America offering Texas as a Jewish homeland either. As for Israel being the “do no wrong” state of the moment you have never heard me say that.

“Actually I have no problem getting out of Iraq. Let’s see how much you people all appreciate the crap we’ve been through over there when it’s European military individuals getting shot and killed weekly.”

British soldiers are dying in Iraq. Had you forgotten they were there? As a military man can you explain why the British are being attacked far less than their US counterparts. Is it because of this ‘Shi’ite triangle’? Or is it because the British have a vastly different attitude to patrolling in cities?

“If there were that many Iraqis unhappy with our presence, we’d have a much bigger problem now, wouldn’t we? Here’s something for you to consider. Do you have evidence showing that it has been an Iraqi who committed every single attack against our forces? Think about that for a minute and things might begin to seem a little clearer…”

During World War 2 many French people were ‘unhappy’ at being occupied, it was only a small percentage though who actively resisted. Foreign terrorists are making the attacks, ok, where’s your evidence?

“Again, we didn’t get drafted. We are all volunteers. We knew the risks when we signed up.

Let’s see, to sum up:
1. “Iraqi’s” keep killing Americans. Therefore America should leave Iraq.
2. “Iraqi’s” have attacked the UN in Iraq. Therefore the UN shouldn’t be allowed to be there either.
3. The only solution is to let Iraq rebuild itself with no outside involvement. That about sums up your position, right?
4. Oh and I almost forgot, every world problem is a result of Bush and the evil United States.”

The whole idea was to give Iraq to the Iraqis, and to find the as yet undiscovered weapons of mass destruction. Which the British Government decided could be launched within 45 minutes. They must have hidden them damn well. The US Government now says they will need to maintain a presence there for many years. Have you really just swopped one oppressor for another? Look at an Iraqi in Baghdad, have conditions really changed that much? Is the ordinary Iraqi being given an opportunity to express their views democratically? As for your fourth point I can think of a myriad of world problems for which America bears no responsibility, why do you insist on taking the blame?

“So you’re saying that the United States should ignore what’s in its own best interests and give in to the rest of the world? I understand. What you’re saying we need to do is adopt Neville Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement. Riiiiiight.”

If you’re going to protect your own best interests then might it not be an idea to catch Osama Bin Laden? There is no evidence that you have caught him, or that your war on terrorism is having a huge effect. Repeated attacks in Iraq, attacks in Bali, Saudi Arabia, Nairobi. Ok, each suicide bombing kills at least one terrorist, but still they make attacks.

Finally, there were some reports in the British press at the weekend that Saddam is negotiating with America for a new life in Russia. I understand that being in the military you can’t actually tell us what you know or don’t know. But in your personal opinion do you think there is the possibility of any truth in these reports?

Regards,

kev35

Originally posted by SOC
Kev:
“First of all, I am not anti-American. Why should I be? Many Americans died during the Second World War, in Europe and the Pacific. It is their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of soldiers of many other Nations which secured our freedom.”

If you attack our government, you are attacking our country. If you don’t like what the government is doing, then you don’t like what AMERICA is doing. Not hard to see where the anti-American label came from. But it’s alright, around here I’ve come to expect nothing less. This forum has become a bastion of anti-Americanism, Indo-Pakistani hatred, and Chinese factual ignorance.

SOC,

I guess we are facing here a major cultural difference.
I don’t feel obliged to support what our governement decide or proclame (by far) . I guess that our Briton fellows do the same.
I don’t feel insulted when someone says : “Chirac is an idiot”.

I feel insulted when some people say : “Frenchmen are this or that”.

That is the major difference. Thinking that GWB is not the right president for America doesn’t transform me into an ugly anti-american which I am not.

I whish you get my point.

Kind regards

Kev:
“First of all, I am not anti-American. Why should I be? Many Americans died during the Second World War, in Europe and the Pacific. It is their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of soldiers of many other Nations which secured our freedom.”

If you attack our government, you are attacking our country. If you don’t like what the government is doing, then you don’t like what AMERICA is doing. Not hard to see where the anti-American label came from. But it’s alright, around here I’ve come to expect nothing less. This forum has become a bastion of anti-Americanism, Indo-Pakistani hatred, and Chinese factual ignorance.

Am I racist? Do I have something against these people? No. But I don’t have flowers tattooed on my ass either, and as such am not some politically correct idiot afraid to speak up or speak out. I have no problem whatsoever calling it like I see it. But I guess you at least had that part figured out.

“Don’t be stupid. I wasn’t suggesting that he went and stood at Kill Devil Hills. However, if the White House doesn’t have some kind of a bunker or shelter where he could have sought refuge, HAD IT BEEN NECESSARY, I’d be very surprised. Instead he chose to say bu**er you to those who were in danger and headed off to comfortable Camp David.”

So he’s allowed to hide in a bunker, but not at Camp David? This is what I mean. You guys are having to try way too hard to find things to complain about these days. But you’re right. The coward. He should have been prevented from taking his family someplace safer so some foreigner felt better. :rolleyes:

“I don’t agree. If one can go why not another. Various senior members of the US Government have visited. It seems then that by the attitude shown here their lives are more expendable than that of Bush.”

I still maintain that bitching about the man’s travel decisions is a real reach and only serves to identify you as a definitive example of anti-American and anti-Bush hatred.

“For once I agree. Leave them to it. At present you can’t say there’s much of an improvement and the US is showing signs of being very uncomfortable in Iraq at the moment. Remember your Government’s boasts about going it alone? Aren’t they currently asking for UN intervention? As the increasing number of Americans die how long will it be before your people demand their return?”

I know, let France and Germany take over. That’s what you all want anyway, isn’t it? For France, Germany, and the rest of Europe to give the US the finger by going in and saving the day in Iraq, and getting rich in the process? At least then we can all gripe and complain when progress hasn’t been made after six months. No wait, that won’t happen, it’ll be America’s fault for turning over power too soon!

Uncomfortable in Iraq? Sorry for getting shot at almost daily. That kinda tends to make one a little uncomfortable. I just hope we start taking a more proactive effort to weed out all the asshats who want to ruin the situation for everyone. Seek and destroy. If that doesn’t work, slash and burn. Let the rest of the world complain that we are unfairly trying to protect the lives of our soldiers.

Asking for UN intervention? And you choose to complain? The world badgers us and we decide to seek the UNs help, like France and others wanted in the first place, and now you complain that we are asking for UN intervention. Damn, you can’t have it both ways. One more time: Y O U C A N ‘ T H A V E I T B O T H W A Y S. Either bitch the UN wasn’t in from the beginning and then be happy we concede, or call us hypocrites for going it alone and then agreeing to the assistance of others beyond our allies. Pick one and stick to it.

“The war is over. Are they to remain there indefinitely with casualties running as high as seven a week? Not many is it, 350 a year? And for what? I have no doubt about the courage of US servicemen, however I think it is criminal to waste their lives in this way. As you say, they have done their job, pull out and leave them to it.”

Good idea. The last bomb was directed at the UN compound in Baghdad. I guess that means the UN has no business there either. And it also means that when civilians are intentionally being targeted, there is terrorism present! Since there is terrorism present, pulling our military out and leaving the civilian administrators in there to get things moving would be very stupid.

If you want US soldiers out of Iraq since they are dying at the hands of Islamic terrorism, you should be supportive of Israeli soldiers getting completely out of Palestinian territories for the same reason. Sorry, nevermind, I forgot Israel is the “can do no wrong” state of the moment. Even though some idiot Brits put the Jewish people in Palestine in the first place I bet we can still find a way to blame this one on the US of A!

Actually I have no problem getting out of Iraq. Let’s see how much you people all appreciate the crap we’ve been through over there when it’s European military individuals getting shot and killed weekly.

“But it’s not an active war zone, President Bush told us so, I heard him. You won the war. It’s a totally different situation. But if you want to use history take a look at King George V and the Prince of Wales in the Great War.”

War: Armed conflict between nations, states, or factions. Webster’s Dictionary. I see no nation, state, or identifiable distinct faction that we are at war with right now. Iraq? No. The Iraqi people? Not all of them. Ergo, he was right, there is no war zone in Iraq as there is currently no war by definition. Hey, guess what, last time I checked, you don’t have to have a state of war for military people to loose their lives.

“So did you win the war or not? Enough Iraqis are unhappy with the result of your efforts that they make up to fifteen attacks a day on your troops. Fortunately, most of them are unsuccessful. You may remember that quite a number of British service personnel were and still are operating in Iraq.”

If there were that many Iraqis unhappy with our presence, we’d have a much bigger problem now, wouldn’t we? Here’s something for you to consider. Do you have evidence showing that it has been an Iraqi who committed every single attack against our forces? Think about that for a minute and things might begin to seem a little clearer…

“But always, you choose the military option. I take my hat off to service personnel in Iraq, whatever their nationalities, they are operating under intolerable conditions. I just question the value of losing them, volunteers, in a conflict which the Iraqi people clearly wish to continue.”

Again, we didn’t get drafted. We are all volunteers. We knew the risks when we signed up.

Let’s see, to sum up:
1. “Iraqi’s” keep killing Americans. Therefore America should leave Iraq.
2. “Iraqi’s” have attacked the UN in Iraq. Therefore the UN shouldn’t be allowed to be there either.
3. The only solution is to let Iraq rebuild itself with no outside involvement. That about sums up your position, right?
4. Oh and I almost forgot, every world problem is a result of Bush and the evil United States.

Alex:
“If the US actually took into account the thougts of other nations then the World would be a safer place, but NOOOOOOOOOOO, u ****s have to have it ALL UR WAY DON’T U.”

So you’re saying that the United States should ignore what’s in its own best interests and give in to the rest of the world? I understand. What you’re saying we need to do is adopt Neville Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement. Riiiiiight.

SOC.

First of all, I am not anti-American. Why should I be? Many Americans died during the Second World War, in Europe and the Pacific. It is their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of soldiers of many other Nations which secured our freedom.

“The whole point of knowing the hurricane was coming, was to GET OUT OF THE WAY. You’d prefer if your leader stood in front of some avoidable natural disaster and let himself and his administration possibly get killed? That is totally asinine.”

Don’t be stupid. I wasn’t suggesting that he went and stood at Kill Devil Hills. However, if the White House doesn’t have some kind of a bunker or shelter where he could have sought refuge, HAD IT BEEN NECESSARY, I’d be very surprised. Instead he chose to say bu**er you to those who were in danger and headed off to comfortable Camp David.

“I do believe there are far more people in the Gulf who would love a chance at Bush’s head than at Blair’s. Walking into an area you know there is a potential threat to prove some macho point is also stupid. I’m not faulting Blair for going, but I am not faulting Bush for not going either.”

I don’t agree. If one can go why not another. Various senior members of the US Government have visited. It seems then that by the attitude shown here their lives are more expendable than that of Bush.

“Besides, the minute he sets foot in Baghdad, all the Bush-haters out there will undoubtedly cry foul and claim he is in some way lording over his new conquest. Yes, the actual war against Iraq is over. Why? The regime is out of power. Now, as we try to begin rebuilding the infrastructure and helping to get the democratic process started, some irritated individuals decide to impede our progress. I say we get out now and leave them in the state they’re in (pardon the pun). Transfer power completely tomorrow, and go home.”

For once I agree. Leave them to it. At present you can’t say there’s much of an improvement and the US is showing signs of being very uncomfortable in Iraq at the moment. Remember your Government’s boasts about going it alone? Aren’t they currently asking for UN intervention? As the increasing number of Americans die how long will it be before your people demand their return?

“”Not too dangerous for the troops?” What is wrong with you? That’s our JOB. The President is there to lead, we are there to execute the mission. And we do it without hesitation, and without regard to the feelings of other world leaders. When we are given a job to do, it will be done. Whether you like it or not, that is our job.”

The war is over. Are they to remain there indefinitely with casualties running as high as seven a week? Not many is it, 350 a year? And for what? I have no doubt about the courage of US servicemen, however I think it is criminal to waste their lives in this way. As you say, they have done their job, pull out and leave them to it.

“You seem to consider Iraq as still being an active war zone, and fault Bush for not visiting the troops, so lets go with that for a minute. By your logic Churchill wasn’t a good leader because he didn’t visit the British troops on the front lines in Germany.”

But it’s not an active war zone, President Bush told us so, I heard him. You won the war. It’s a totally different situation. But if you want to use history take a look at King George V and the Prince of Wales in the Great War.

“US troops are still dying in Iraq because of terrorism. We face that threat all over the world. But you don’t see us hiding out and crying to foreign leaders for reparation payments for our dead, no matter how justified said payments may be in those cases currently in the media spotlight. We are going out and doing something about it. That seems to be the problem here.”

So did you win the war or not? Enough Iraqis are unhappy with the result of your efforts that they make up to fifteen attacks a day on your troops. Fortunately, most of them are unsuccessful. You may remember that quite a number of British service personnel were and still are operating in Iraq.

“Here’s the difference between Americans and most other people in the world. Most everyone else wants to sit back and bitch about the world’s problems, but complain when someone suggests doing anything about them, and speak out agressively against someone who actually takes initiative and does something about them. We actively pursue solutions, and then get ridiculed for solving problems without consulting the people who were content to merely complain about them.”

But always, you choose the military option. I take my hat off to service personnel in Iraq, whatever their nationalities, they are operating under intolerable conditions. I just question the value of losing them, volunteers, in a conflict which the Iraqi people clearly wish to continue.

Regards,

kev35

::: request denied :::

We’ll see this through with… or without people like you.

Phantom, ur post just shows why the World hates America…thank you!!!
If the US actually took into account the thougts of other nations then the World would be a safer place, but NOOOOOOOOOOO, u ****s have to have it ALL UR WAY DON’T U.
I say the UN should tell Bush to go f*** himself, he openly told the UN they didn’t matter, so the UN should do exactly the same to that dipstick.
The only ones I feel sorry for are the Iraqi people who are suffering worse under Bush than under Hussein, at the very least HE gave them water and electricity!!!
The ONLY thing Bush wanted was oil…he just didn’t have the BALLS to admit it to the world. As for Blair, well the less said the better.
Tell Bush to do the World a favour and get the f*** out of Iraq, the UN don’t want him there, the Arab World doesn’t want him and and most importantly the IRAQI PEOPLE DON’T WANT HIM THERE!!! GET OUT, NOW!!!

I don’t see the Europeans after WWII say “let’s let them rule themselves ASAP”….Obviously NOT. They have no clue on how to “rule themselves” on the national level (sure on the local level i have 100% confidence that Iraqis know what they’re doing)…hence that’s what they are learning every minute right now, how to form a national level democratic government. What is France’s intent on “ASAP”? Could it be that France can “buy” their way back in? ASAP? Stop doing thing half-assed. As to not getting basic services back online, sure let’s just keep Baghdad well lit and let the rest of the country continue to suffer like the last decade…totally retarded, and you call yourselves citizens of democracy and “socialist” societies….i thought socialist ideals is to share and take care of everybody…i guess except when it comes to people you don’t give a damn, like Iraqis.
Bush is asking for help, much like half a year ago when he’s asking for help, much like the wisdom of Blair’s government since the outset saying that they don’t agree with Bush 100%, but a true friend is to help and provide guidiance when appropriate. What is France and Germany doing? There are friends that’ll go down with you and then there are “friends” that kick you down and says “ha ha”.

It’s interesting how many are saying that the reconstruction of Iraq is being mishandled and proceeding slower than expected. I wonder who would do a better job? Certainly not the UN. France, Russia and Germany? Ya right! (talk about putting the monkeys in charge of the bananas!). Lots of critics but no specifics about how this can be done faster other than vague comments about let Iraq handle its own affairs ASAP. We would all like to see that happen most of all the US.

Anyone can say the process is taking to long but I think an objective look at past events would suggest turning a nation around after a mad man has been in control for an extented period, takes more than a few months. How soon did the allies turn Germany over to a truely German government after WWII?

Regards

Sauron

“”Allies” like this, we don’t need.”

ahhh it is George Bush jnr that is currently asking for the UN to come in and help… financially and with troops… but keep away from the oil… that is Americas’.

I say, you made your bed… now lie in it.

Told you going in that the people of Iraq would prefer an Iraqi running the show… even if it was Saddam. It isn’t just US troops that are being attacked, but UK and UN targets as well. It isn’t about the US or the UK. If the US could get over itself it might realise that the solution is self government… give the Iraqis real power as soon as possible… they have had a country and a civilisation longer than any European can claim, let alone a new worlder like the US.

Originally posted by mixtec
The reason the US military is chasing “asshats” is because its the US snail pace handleing of the situation that is keeping Iraq in the stoneage. Noone wants to listen to people who are pointing out poor (or nonexistant) stratagy for plans to rebuild . And since the US isnt allowing other countrys to go in (and you know very well that countrys like France, Germany, Russia and most other European countrys want very much to be part of the rebuilding), we have to listen to Dubyas speaches about how US troops are going to stamp out the enemys of freedom. When its the US post war mismanagment that is hindering freedom and holding back progress.

Get a clue. Since you brought it up: The French, German and Russian government can not be trusted on this issue. Get over it.

*Russia. Yeah right. They were giving out diplomas to Iraqi Intel agents as recent as last year.

*France and Germany: Socialist and Green Govenment? Forget it. The French president is tainted on the issue of Iraq- Do I really, really have to list all the reasons?

As for something like France doing peacekeeping work in Iraq. You may want to consider how they handled Srebrenica in Ex-Yugoslavia in July 1995 before you think that the French are effective peacekeepers. Their record in that department doesn’t impress me.

“Allies” like this, we don’t need.

Re: What is wrong with George Bush?

Originally posted by kev35
OK, you’re all, thinking, another American bashing thread, but this time it’s just the one. President George W Bush.

The war in Iraq is over, I know it is because President Bush told us so a few months ago.

.Yup and as I have said already. It’s your business if you like to listen to media with selective memory. He also said in the same speech that the job ahead was still dangerous and there is still work to do. But I suppose you would have said that there is no reason to rebuild Germany or Japan as we didn’t get the job complete in 6 months. Therefore it’s a failure.

Yet US troops are still dying in what can no longer be called petty numbers. But that’s not the point I’m getting at. Since the ending of the war Bush has not visited Iraq because it is too dangerous. Not too dangerous for the troops or for other members of his Government, not too dangerous for Tony Blair. If you are prepared to put your troops in harms way you should be prepared to visit them..That of course is YOUR opinion.

Hurricane Isobel. The eastern seaboard braces itself for Isobel’s arrival and several states are ready to declare a state of emergency. Where is Fearless Leader? Gone up to Camp David a day early to ride out the storm. However, he will, and I quote “Be monitoring the situation carefully….” He seems to avoid being in crisis situations. I would NOT be comforted by having a leader who refuses to face any of the dangers faced by his people.
.A hurricane? This is your best fking reach to bash Bush. Pretty weak.
Regards,

kev35

Hey ! What a suprise! Another bash America thread on AFM. I would have never thought. My comments above in RED

BTW I think the reason flip floping on going to war in Iraq was stupid. Having said that, getting rid of SH was the right thing to do. 12 years of parlor games is enough. Game Over.

Here is a little hint for you. I don’t bring up Mr. Blair ( I usually say ( AND I SHOULDN’T for the reason mention here ) He’s a strong leader for a socialist ) or the Royal Family ( One post where I was mostly complementary )out of courtesy. ( Something sorely lacking on this forum. ) They belong to you not me. It is your right to criticize them as you see fit. It is interesting that you get all fired up by your biased media in the U.K. and then see fit to pay insult on our president.

Originally posted by SOC
Does Bush have a 100% approval rating? No? Then I guess all Americans aren’t behind him, are they? And let me think…we have a bunch of people in Iraq. They could be rebuilding the infrastructure. Instead, they have to go hunting for a bunch of asshats who I guess want to keep Iraq in the stone age. No wonder nothing gets done. The people supposed to be helping the citizens are instead having to sort through them and find the few bad apples who spoiled everything for everybody. But no, the fault could never lie on anyone other than an American.

Just who would you propose we let go in there and help rebuild?

The reason the US military is chasing “asshats” is because its the US snail pace handleing of the situation that is keeping Iraq in the stoneage. Noone wants to listen to people who are pointing out poor (or nonexistant) stratagy for plans to rebuild . And since the US isnt allowing other countrys to go in (and you know very well that countrys like France, Germany, Russia and most other European countrys want very much to be part of the rebuilding), we have to listen to Dubyas speaches about how US troops are going to stamp out the enemys of freedom, when its the US post war mismanagment that is hindering freedom and holding back progress.