\"I was for it then and I still am. We need new leaders

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 12:54 pm

I was for it then and I still am. We need new leadership though to finish the job.

That's a quote from Cuda, regarding the Iraq war. I'd rather not argue my stance in this thread, but listen to the pro-war stance at this point.

This thread deals with the issue of leadership for those for the war.

Is Bush the right guy to finish the job, or do you think as Cuda does that we need someone else to finish the job. If so, who would be the best candidate to do so, and why?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:36 pm

Colin Powell. He's not afraid to kill people and break things but he understood the big picture much better than they did...or at least cared about more than they did.
Of course no one is going to give him the job and it will be a democrat or republican party member who is in charge so we're compromised right there.

So if I have to pick from the soon to be crop of candidates I'll take Rudy Giuliani.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:30 pm

How hypothetical is this, could it be anyone, or is it limited to people who are still alive?

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:31 pm

He means who alive now.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:33 pm

Oh, well then I would be the best guy for the job.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:38 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Colin Powell. He's not afraid to kill people and break things but he understood the big picture much better than they did...or at least cared about more than they did.
Of course no one is going to give him the job and it will be a democrat or republican party member who is in charge so we're compromised right there.

So if I have to pick from the soon to be crop of candidates I'll take Rudy Giuliani.

X2

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:42 pm

we should stick with a tactic that works
how did we win ww2?

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Mon Dec 11, 2006 9:45 pm

ccb056 wrote:we should stick with a tactic that works
how did we win ww2?

We blasted them to smithereens so they had no choice in the matter.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 5:39 am

Cuda68 wrote:
ccb056 wrote:we should stick with a tactic that works
how did we win ww2?
We blasted them to smithereens so they had no choice in the matter.

That's right. However, the circumstances are much different than they were in WWII. "Blasting them to smithereens" is hardly a one size fits all solution.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:35 am

Right.... WW2 was a case of nation on nation combat, whereas this war is nation on faction combat. In WW2 we justified blowing up non-combatants because they where deemed to be part of the war effort simply by their claim to allegance to Japan. Everyone in Japan knew that something was coming (they probably thought invasion) that would affect them all, so by choosing to stay in the contry for that long they where deemed to have claimed that allegance. In this case, we would inevitably kill people who never had anything to do with the war, and aren't assisting either side at all.

fliptw · Post by **fliptw** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 1:37 pm

snoopy wrote:Right.... WW2 was a case of nation on nation combat, whereas this war is nation on faction combat. In WW2 we justified blowing up non-combatants because they where deemed to be part of the war effort simply by their claim to allegance to Japan. Everyone in Japan knew that something was coming (they probably thought invasion) that would affect them all, so by choosing to stay in the contry for that long they where deemed to have claimed that allegance. In this case, we would inevitably kill people who never had anything to do with the war, and aren't assisting either side at all.

No, we blew them up because it was easier.

The US had the technology for accurate bombing then, the UK choose quanity.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:00 pm

ccb056 wrote:how did we win ww2?

Holy Moly - you don't know?

Are you aware of the maxim; "Those who do not understand history, are doomed to repeat it"?

FYI: you did not "win" WWII - you shared the win with the rest of the Western Allies. While your entrance into the war was very late, and you only came in, kicking and screaming AFTER Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, at least you came...

No, your history needs some brushing up, and your question has a very simple answer, which relates back to Pearl too: just after the attacks, when the Japanese fleet Admiral reported back to the Emperor, that he had only managed to catch 1 aircraft carrier in the surprise attack, and that two aircraft carriers and battle groups had not been sunk... He said, "I fear all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant."

Indeed, his words were prophetic, for the manufacturing might of the USA was brought to bear on the machines of war; in a manufacturing and engineering boom which was only ever matched by Russia moving its entire infrastructure up into Siberia - which eventually turned the tide against the Nazis in Russia.

I forget the exact numbers, but by the end of WWII the USA was churning out a simply staggering amount of war machinery: it was hundreds of planes a week, and hundreds of tanks; a battleship every month and an aircraft carrier every 2-3 months.

Additionally, the American manufacturers were not under any illusions about their hardware; it was designed and built to last only a few months, and no more.

This is where the Germans made a huge mistake, that literally could have cost them victory, or at least a stalemate; they insisted on engineering everythign as if it were going to last for 30 years.

Their tanks, which had an average life, towards the end of the war, of about 12 days in service, before being destroyed, were still being made by engineers as if they were going to be serviced, and re-serviced, and continue in battle for many years.

The extra cost in time, and money, and lost production, of being this fastidious meant that the supply of war machinery literally dried up. Without a constant and high supply of tanks and planes, the Nazi war machine could not operate.

Of course, Hitler's insanity, and stupidity of going into Russia and thinking he could be done with the place in 6 months was a crucial mistake as well, and there were many more - but the crux of the matter was the industrial gigantism of the US manufacturing base, which was turned towards the sole purpose of defeating Germany and Japan.

If I was a religious man, I would offer up a prayer that the US never has to do that ever again.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:52 am

If it were my choice I'd put Bush in for another 4 years. Now before the manic howling begins, consider the message this would send to Iran, Syria and and their terroist henchmen. Franklin Roosevelt served what...4 terms? I'd say in this case of war, albiet a nebulous one, keeping a single President to see it thru makes sense. O.K. have at me

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:01 pm

woodchip wrote:Now before the manic howling begins, consider the message this would send to Iran, Syria and and their terroist henchmen.

I think the correct sent message would be 'America hates your guts, and will do just about anything to get rid of you'.
That's not the message I want to be sent.

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:11 pm

Mobi, you probably haven't picked up on this yet, I will ask questions that I know the answer to in order to steer the thread in a direction that I feel is necessary.

As for Bush serving more terms, while I wouldn't mind, it is currently against the US Constitution:

22nd Amendment

IIRC, which I usually do

this Amendment was ratified after FDR died.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 12:13 pm

woodchip wrote:If it were my choice I'd put Bush in for another 4 years. Now before the manic howling begins, consider the message this would send to Iran, Syria and and their terroist henchmen. Franklin Roosevelt served what...4 terms? I'd say in this case of war, albiet a nebulous one, keeping a single President to see it thru makes sense. O.K. have at me

I can appreciate your point as to what kind of message it would send, generically speaking.... It could send a message of strength and desire to never stop until we prevail but since half of congress was able to vote for the war but then immediately start sending the message that they are against Bush and his plans and are going to take over congress and then get out of Iraq quickly the enemy never believed we were steadfast.

I don't favor giving any president an extended term but hypothetically, if Bush was deserving of a chance to manage this to the end he would have done a much better job manging the public relations part of his job selling the public on the mission, keeping the WMD's in perspective and understanding the changes and then telling us how he was going to deal with them. He didn't. So even if an extended term was available he isn't deserving of any more time at the helm beyond his present term.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:31 pm

The only thing Bush deserves is a hole 6ft long and 6ft deep. Anyone would have to be absolutely batshit to think he should even be in charge tomorrow!

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:10 am

There is a much bigger question looming here that frightens me. How would you fight a country (pick one) that continues to harbor and train terrorists to blow up buildings and airplanes and has a nuclear arsenal to back up its agenda.

How would a country like the US fight something like that even if it had a president that was excellent at protecting us or its allies.

This has bothered me for some time.

Bee

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:36 am

Bet51987 wrote:There is a much bigger question looming here that frightens me. How would you fight a country (pick one) that continues to harbor and train terrorists to blow up buildings and airplanes and has a nuclear arsenal to back up its agenda.

How would a country like the US fight something like that even if it had a president that was excellent at protecting us or its allies.

This has bothered me for some time.

Bee

Either very carefully with overwhelming world support that causes them to give in to demands for fear they can't survive a truly united world effort..... or very quickly with a massive all encompassing nuclear and conventional bombing campaign that could take out their offensive capability in a matter of hours.

Of course that would be a gamble based on intel brought to us by less than completely reliable sources. We could think we were going to knock them out and wake up the day after to find out they just launched a string of missiles we didn't expect them to have!

If the nutjob in Iran keeps control and they develop long range nuclear missile capabilty then we may just get to see how it's done pretty soon before he builds up much of an arsenal.
And if you think Bush busting into Iraq gives the islamo-fascists a recruiting boost wait until we turn a whole muslim country into radioactive glass!

We are so close to this becoming a reality it's way past scary.
People say we are arrogant and bullies to use pre-emptive measures but they are thinking in terms of these radicals operating with old weapons where they had to march across borders and shoot guns in their attacks. Now we are about to be faced with nuclear and biological weapons being launched from a distance into our civilian populations and you just can't wait to be attacked to justify a response! I don't think I'll sleep as soundly with a President Kerry or Hillary in control for that very reason! Bush wasn't very good at the diplomatic side of pre-emptive action but at least he understood the hour was now. If he had managed it better Iraq would have been recognized as a minor blip on the screen and the coalition of countries would have helped us sweep Saddam off the map and be with us as we squared off against Iran and Syria. With that kind of results and allied support Iran would probably capitulate and if not at least our leaders wouldn't be so politically paranoid to be afraid to go after them if need be.

Cuda68 · Post by **Cuda68** » Sat Dec 16, 2006 11:37 am

Bet51987 wrote:There is a much bigger question looming here that frightens me. How would you fight a country (pick one) that continues to harbor and train terrorists to blow up buildings and airplanes and has a nuclear arsenal to back up its agenda.

How would a country like the US fight something like that even if it had a president that was excellent at protecting us or its allies.

This has bothered me for some time.

Bee

Exactly why we need new leadership. This is one tough problem where more bombs and bullets wont solve it. I agreed with the war because they have been killing and attacking us for over 40 years and we did nothing. They needed to know enough was enough and there is a price to be paid for there actions, but now how to move past that and put things together.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 2:31 am

re:OP

This comment by Cuda, and everyone's agreement with it caught me off guard also. I feel like i was cryogenically frozen, and have just been woken up to another world.

Can i please ask, for how long have you ppl thought bush sucks? i just want to know how long i was out. Coz i swear last time i was here Bush was awesome.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:08 am

roid wrote:...Can i please ask, for how long have you ppl thought bush sucks? i just want to know how long i was out. Coz i swear last time i was here Bush was awesome.

I think you have always tried to simplify things too much. Maybe because you are totally against the war it keeps you from being able to judge all the many variables at work here, I don't know.
Regardless, Bush is not "awsome" but he is deserving of some respect for realizing pre-emptive action was necessary in the wake of 9/11 and for not letting the french and the russians continue their two-faced games within the U.N. Security Council letting Saddam get back to buying their weapons and building his strength back up without ever giving in to the U.N. resolutions.
On the other hand Bush began nibbling the root when he had the generals on the ground delay the invasion of Fallujah because the timing would have put the fresh body bags on the news on the eve of an election....
That was a couple of years ago and I remember saying then that I hope this isn't a sign of a politician losing the will to prosecute because he faces political pressure. Well as it turns out my fears were well founded and since then he hasn't shown us anything other than the posture of a president who is waiting for victory to magically develop on it's own, meanwhile the troops are dying in limbo. So he sucks for that
And yet he's still better than Kerry or Gore would have been.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:37 pm

Bet51987 wrote:There is a much bigger question looming here that frightens me. How would you fight a country (pick one) that continues to harbor and train terrorists to blow up buildings and airplanes and has a nuclear arsenal to back up its agenda.

How would a country like the US fight something like that even if it had a president that was excellent at protecting us or its allies.

This has bothered me for some time.

Bee

As demonstrated by our handling of Afghanastan. We joined with a dissitent group and pushed forth with primarily air power, special ops guys and native fighters.
Iran ATM is surrounded by us. Also, as I posted long age, it appears there are 3 kurdish provences within Iran, that boarder Iraq and when you start hearing about a kurdish desire to be autonymous from the Iranian govt., you can bet your bippy that something is afoot.
Lastly Bet, remember the American military is the best in the world at what it does. It also has more combat experience (thanks to the 2 gulf wars and Afghanastan) than any military in the world. A country like Iran may delude itself that it is prepared but in reality can never cut the mustard against us. The only way we can be defeated is by certain political types who see cutting short the war or appeasing the enemy as a way to getting or keeping power.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:09 pm

I personally think that Colin Powell would be a good option, I frogot who said it but I give them credit for that.

Bold Deceiver · Post by **Bold Deceiver** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:57 am

Testiculese wrote:The only thing Bush deserves is a hole 6ft long and 6ft deep. Anyone would have to be absolutely ***** to think he should even be in charge tomorrow!

Very classy comment. Very courageous, too, standing up for your convictions, even while risking five years in federal prison.

18 U.S.C. § 871

Whoops. Maybe you're not so courageous, maybe it's the other explanation.

Warmest Regards,

BD