Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Lovely:
McChrystal: U.S. only 'halfway done' in Afghanista
- Thread starter Bevo Incognito
- Start date
If McChrystal thinks that the US invasion of Iraq under Bush tarnished Muslims' views of America, then he STILL has a simplistic and misguided understanding.
If he or Bush or anyone else 10 years ago didnt understand the realities or perceptions in the ME then they are either lying, or were/are the dumbest people on the planet.
It is well documented, and was then, and for them to be oblivious of it defies logic and reason. Piss poor analysis on his part. I say he is just blowing smoke and acting stupid intentionally.
If he or Bush or anyone else 10 years ago didnt understand the realities or perceptions in the ME then they are either lying, or were/are the dumbest people on the planet.
It is well documented, and was then, and for them to be oblivious of it defies logic and reason. Piss poor analysis on his part. I say he is just blowing smoke and acting stupid intentionally.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Burnt Orange Bevo
1,000+ Posts
Well said, B.I.
Hitler made a fateful decision when he elected to start war on a second front against the Soviets in WWII, and history is starting to gel around the fact that Bush did not act wisely when he elected to lead the U.S. into war against Iraq. The war in Iraq has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, strained or harmed relations with many U.S. allies (e.g. Turkey), killed or injured thousands of U.S. troops and strained their families through multiple deployments. Add to that the fact that Pentagon planners had to divide their forces and planning/attention across 2 theaters instead of one.
When you consider that the Iraq War has had a huge impact on our federal debt/deficit problem, I think it's fair to say that Bush's decision to take the U.S. into Iraq was a disastrous one.
For the Iraq war apologists, are there any clear and positive benefits that the U.S. has gained as a result of this war?
Hitler made a fateful decision when he elected to start war on a second front against the Soviets in WWII, and history is starting to gel around the fact that Bush did not act wisely when he elected to lead the U.S. into war against Iraq. The war in Iraq has cost U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, strained or harmed relations with many U.S. allies (e.g. Turkey), killed or injured thousands of U.S. troops and strained their families through multiple deployments. Add to that the fact that Pentagon planners had to divide their forces and planning/attention across 2 theaters instead of one.
When you consider that the Iraq War has had a huge impact on our federal debt/deficit problem, I think it's fair to say that Bush's decision to take the U.S. into Iraq was a disastrous one.
For the Iraq war apologists, are there any clear and positive benefits that the U.S. has gained as a result of this war?
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Roger, don't forget whoever ended up with the 12-16 billion dollars in CASH that we sent over in the direct aftermath of the invasion. They are probably among those who benefited.
But I digress. I hope McChrystal's message is not lost: KNOW THY ENEMY before you voluntarily go to war with him.
But I digress. I hope McChrystal's message is not lost: KNOW THY ENEMY before you voluntarily go to war with him.
Incognito,
of course youd hate to think our leaders would lie to us. Most Americans think that way.
Look, the "Council" and McChrystal and anyone with a brain knows that our image in the ME has been tarnished for decades. This idea that whoops we made a mistake and garnered their ire by invading is a bunch of bologna.
What I know, that McChrystal and Bush and all of them knew and knew back then, was that the Islamic world already had a tarnished view of us. Do I really need to go over it? Lord knows Ive done it ad nauseum on Hornfans over the years.....
So I favor the more likely scenario of simply pumping smoke for the masses that we "made a mistake and didnt have foresight." ********. Cop out.
Our leaders lie to us. Thats what politicians do. They lie. They enjoy power. They lie. Understand this please.
of course youd hate to think our leaders would lie to us. Most Americans think that way.
Look, the "Council" and McChrystal and anyone with a brain knows that our image in the ME has been tarnished for decades. This idea that whoops we made a mistake and garnered their ire by invading is a bunch of bologna.
What I know, that McChrystal and Bush and all of them knew and knew back then, was that the Islamic world already had a tarnished view of us. Do I really need to go over it? Lord knows Ive done it ad nauseum on Hornfans over the years.....
So I favor the more likely scenario of simply pumping smoke for the masses that we "made a mistake and didnt have foresight." ********. Cop out.
Our leaders lie to us. Thats what politicians do. They lie. They enjoy power. They lie. Understand this please.
And if you think voting for Cain or Romney or Perry is going to change the status quo, I dont know what to say. Voting for Hope and Change Obama didnt change anything either. Hes only proliferated everything that Bush did.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
This quote" President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was a costly diversion that has tarnished Muslims’ perception of the United States"
is insanely stupid
What perception does he or any of you think muslims had prior to 03?
How about in 79 or
83 when muslims attacked the marines barracks in Beirut killing 241?
or also in 83 attack in Kuwait on our embassy killing 5 Americans
or in 84 another attack on US embassy in beirut, Americans killed
93first WTC bombing. What caused that? love and respect from Muslims?
96 How about Kobar towers killing American military ? More good opinion by muslims?
98 Ah such good perception of us by Muslims they bomb
USA embassies in Africa. What did we do to deserve all this good will? If only Bush had not destroyed it
I know! muslims have such a good opinion they decide to show that love by blowing a hole is the side of a US navy ship in 2000
Feel the love yet?
now it is 2001
Such great perception of us they fly planes into our buldings killing thousands.
and on and on and on.
anyone who thinks Bush changed muslims perception of us by taking out Saddam is either lying or simply too stupid to be in a position of any power
is insanely stupid
What perception does he or any of you think muslims had prior to 03?
How about in 79 or
83 when muslims attacked the marines barracks in Beirut killing 241?
or also in 83 attack in Kuwait on our embassy killing 5 Americans
or in 84 another attack on US embassy in beirut, Americans killed
93first WTC bombing. What caused that? love and respect from Muslims?
96 How about Kobar towers killing American military ? More good opinion by muslims?
98 Ah such good perception of us by Muslims they bomb
USA embassies in Africa. What did we do to deserve all this good will? If only Bush had not destroyed it
I know! muslims have such a good opinion they decide to show that love by blowing a hole is the side of a US navy ship in 2000
Feel the love yet?
now it is 2001
Such great perception of us they fly planes into our buldings killing thousands.
and on and on and on.
anyone who thinks Bush changed muslims perception of us by taking out Saddam is either lying or simply too stupid to be in a position of any power
President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was a costly diversion that has tarnished Muslims’ perception of the United States.
__________________________________________________
he probsably met his first muslim a few years ago. if he knew any, he would know that millitant islam and anti-american sentiment has been around for over a hundred years and anti-western feelings have been around for over a thousand.
__________________________________________________
he probsably met his first muslim a few years ago. if he knew any, he would know that millitant islam and anti-american sentiment has been around for over a hundred years and anti-western feelings have been around for over a thousand.
Incognito,
I agree that it further tarnished our reputation, but the implication from the excerpt in the original post is that our reputation somehow suffered because of our invasion, and that it was somehow not already tarnished already.
Our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs has a long history, and the idea that we irked the Arabs and Muslims by invading is ridiculous. Theyve been irked for a long time at us, and it only added fuel to the fire. In other words, the idea that McChrystal portrays that we were somehow ignorant or that we didnt anticipate what followed is a blatant lie.
The whole tenor of the article is to imply that we made mistakes and that we have learned from them. No. We knew exactly what we were doing and were fully aware of the situation and still did it anyway. The article is trying to give us a free pass. No. Wrong.
I agree that it further tarnished our reputation, but the implication from the excerpt in the original post is that our reputation somehow suffered because of our invasion, and that it was somehow not already tarnished already.
Our meddling in Middle Eastern affairs has a long history, and the idea that we irked the Arabs and Muslims by invading is ridiculous. Theyve been irked for a long time at us, and it only added fuel to the fire. In other words, the idea that McChrystal portrays that we were somehow ignorant or that we didnt anticipate what followed is a blatant lie.
The whole tenor of the article is to imply that we made mistakes and that we have learned from them. No. We knew exactly what we were doing and were fully aware of the situation and still did it anyway. The article is trying to give us a free pass. No. Wrong.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
As McChrystal is the one who said the USA had been too focused on the safety of our troops in Afghanistan( memos published by WaPo) and his new policies led to the idea of a" courageous restraint medal" ( thankfully shot down but someone smart) His ideas on anything pertaining to the ME should be viewed as suspect if not downright idiotic.
Funny, after Obama fired him many obama supporters on here were applauding Obama for it and criticiszing Mcchrystal as a military leader.
My how times have changed
Funny, after Obama fired him many obama supporters on here were applauding Obama for it and criticiszing Mcchrystal as a military leader.
My how times have changed
Anytime, any president in the future takes our country to war without taking it to congress first we should ALL be screaming at the top of our lungs. STOP!! We shouldn't be worried about appearing unpatriotic.
Going to war with anyone (not to mention 'winning the peace') will always, always, always be frought with uncertainty.
If you are ok with sniping at terrorist leaders to degrade their networks or carpetbombing their country as your plan A and Plan B, then it could/can be operationally simple with relatively few strings to unravel, BUT if you become entangled in building a nation, winning the peace, or any of the other euphamistic expressions for improper use of a military then it is always going to be a very long and costly exercise.
As a simple analogy, think of how much has to work correctly for your car to cruise down the highway. Now think of how simple it is to stop your car by breaking any one of a thousand parts. That's what you have in nation building peace/war. It is simple as hell to break stuff. We can break it with small SpecOps team, we can break it with large full spectrum ops. But trying to build something and have it 'crusing down the road' in any reliable manner is difficult. And if there is a force (ie, AQAP, AQIM, Taliban, Haqqani, HIG et al) trying to break your 'car', they have the easy job. Our job is infinitely harder.
Going to war with anyone (not to mention 'winning the peace') will always, always, always be frought with uncertainty.
If you are ok with sniping at terrorist leaders to degrade their networks or carpetbombing their country as your plan A and Plan B, then it could/can be operationally simple with relatively few strings to unravel, BUT if you become entangled in building a nation, winning the peace, or any of the other euphamistic expressions for improper use of a military then it is always going to be a very long and costly exercise.
As a simple analogy, think of how much has to work correctly for your car to cruise down the highway. Now think of how simple it is to stop your car by breaking any one of a thousand parts. That's what you have in nation building peace/war. It is simple as hell to break stuff. We can break it with small SpecOps team, we can break it with large full spectrum ops. But trying to build something and have it 'crusing down the road' in any reliable manner is difficult. And if there is a force (ie, AQAP, AQIM, Taliban, Haqqani, HIG et al) trying to break your 'car', they have the easy job. Our job is infinitely harder.
McC is correct about our government being woefully ignorant except for one part: the State Department consistently gets it right but gets ignored or overruled by the political hacks who get appointed to run it.
To avoid my usual default position of dumping on republicans, let me point out that the head of the state department now is a political hack with no qualifications for the job at all. She has never lived in a foreign country and has no diplomatic experience whatsoever. There is no evidence she has ever spent any time engaged in diplomatic efforts or participated in a meaningful way in the ongoing discussions about matters economic in the world at large.
She got the job to protect Obama from a collateral attack and backbiting from the Senate. She is the only dem who would make a viable opponent for him this next election and she can't do it because he wisely gave her a job in his administration; even though she is not qualified for it by experience.
This is part of a pattern. We had a general running our operations in Afghanistan and he spoke none of the languages, had never lived there and knew nothing about the place.
How is it that we continuously find ourselves in this situation? Perhaps it is a result of our obsession with American Exceptionalism? We spend all our time slapping ourselves on the back bragging about how we are the most powerful country in the world and get bogged down in wars with a bunch of suicide bombers with homemade equipment.
We play chess one move at a time and are always planning to win the last war.
Letting the military plan wars is not working out. They won a quick, decisive victory in Iraq and god bless them for a well executed plan. But then what?
There was no plan about what to do next. The generals don't do that. And our best and brightest ahole politicians thought the whole thing would pay for itself and that we would just turn the place over to the opposition? There wasn't any, except in some mass graves. They apparently had not thought about that.
We turn the country over to a peace loving government that is grateful to us for invading their country? Where are you going to find that? We did it in Germany and Japan by occupying the places for decades and letting them know from the get go that we were't leaving.
In Iraq, the elections were won, surprise, by the majority, which was, surprise, Shia, who were, surprise, inclined to listen to Iran. Our buddies in the area. Nobody in DC seemed to take that into consideration except at the state department and it was headed at the time by a general who joined in the game. Thanks a lot, Colin.
I have no solutions to this set of problems, but even I knew Iran was likely to be the winner if Saddam got removed.
To avoid my usual default position of dumping on republicans, let me point out that the head of the state department now is a political hack with no qualifications for the job at all. She has never lived in a foreign country and has no diplomatic experience whatsoever. There is no evidence she has ever spent any time engaged in diplomatic efforts or participated in a meaningful way in the ongoing discussions about matters economic in the world at large.
She got the job to protect Obama from a collateral attack and backbiting from the Senate. She is the only dem who would make a viable opponent for him this next election and she can't do it because he wisely gave her a job in his administration; even though she is not qualified for it by experience.
This is part of a pattern. We had a general running our operations in Afghanistan and he spoke none of the languages, had never lived there and knew nothing about the place.
How is it that we continuously find ourselves in this situation? Perhaps it is a result of our obsession with American Exceptionalism? We spend all our time slapping ourselves on the back bragging about how we are the most powerful country in the world and get bogged down in wars with a bunch of suicide bombers with homemade equipment.
We play chess one move at a time and are always planning to win the last war.
Letting the military plan wars is not working out. They won a quick, decisive victory in Iraq and god bless them for a well executed plan. But then what?
There was no plan about what to do next. The generals don't do that. And our best and brightest ahole politicians thought the whole thing would pay for itself and that we would just turn the place over to the opposition? There wasn't any, except in some mass graves. They apparently had not thought about that.
We turn the country over to a peace loving government that is grateful to us for invading their country? Where are you going to find that? We did it in Germany and Japan by occupying the places for decades and letting them know from the get go that we were't leaving.
In Iraq, the elections were won, surprise, by the majority, which was, surprise, Shia, who were, surprise, inclined to listen to Iran. Our buddies in the area. Nobody in DC seemed to take that into consideration except at the state department and it was headed at the time by a general who joined in the game. Thanks a lot, Colin.
I have no solutions to this set of problems, but even I knew Iran was likely to be the winner if Saddam got removed.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
I think he is making an accurate judgement. Our reputation in the ME hasn't been very good.
Supporting dictators has hurt our reputation.
Supporting a specific group has hurt our reputation.
I wouldn't be surprised if staying out of conflicts has hurt our reputation.
Being a superpower is kind of a no win situation with regard to international popular support. Someone is always going to be pissed off. Where I agree most with 2003, is that if our reputation is going to suck no matter what we do, in most cases we should opt to do nothing and save American lives and money.
Supporting dictators has hurt our reputation.
Supporting a specific group has hurt our reputation.
I wouldn't be surprised if staying out of conflicts has hurt our reputation.
Being a superpower is kind of a no win situation with regard to international popular support. Someone is always going to be pissed off. Where I agree most with 2003, is that if our reputation is going to suck no matter what we do, in most cases we should opt to do nothing and save American lives and money.
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
Uninformed
5,000+ Posts
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Insanity, thy name is public education
- Started by ProdigalHorn
- Replies: 29
- West Mall
-
The Modern Democratic Party by Isaiah L. Carter
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 5
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 412
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
