I got in a discussion with a friend (he has an AM talk show in Des Moines and is a political junkie) about what GW's report card would look like. So we drafted out the categories and each scored him with a sentence of explanation to start a discussion. I think it will give an interesting impression of where everyone here stands.
The Card:
In each of the follow area's I would give George Bush's administration the following letter grade-
Economics: (how his administration has managed the economy and its effectiveness)
Fiscal Policy: (while handling the finances of the United States, how has he performed?)
Environmental & Energy: (the two are nearly inseparable, how has he done managing our energy supplies while protecting our environment?)
Social Agenda: (how satisfied are you with the social direction the president has push for and/or his effectiveness at doing so?)
Military: (has he strengthened or reduced out military to your satisfaction?)
Foreign Policy: (has the US position in the world improved or decline and if so, to what extend is Bush to credit?)
Stewardship: (the president inherited the leadership and will pass it on, how has it taken care of the position and the US image in the world at large)
Overall: (GPA if you will. Perhaps some areas scored well but are not worth as much as others?)
My Life: (regaurdless of the president, how has your life improved (A) or declined (F) or stayed the same (C) in the last 7 years?)
(I tried to not inflame and give things as an opinion as well as only blame/credit the administration where credit is due)
Economics: B-. The economy is booming, but tax cuts and a push for free trade are his only contributions. The rest is timing. Immigration policy coupled with generally poor foreign relations and over spending still looms as a potential danger area that the president could have addressed.
Fiscal Policy: F. An ongoing war is no longer an emergency measure, republicans are not supposed to increase entitlements, and as much as I hate to say it - if you are going to spend you have to tax.
Environmental & Energy: C-. While he has not implemented much applauded "solutions" such as massive subsidies and draconian dictations on emotions that I think would be in error, he has done nothing to steer the country towards greener technology such as streamlining the permitting of new cleaner power plants & refineries or offering research grants/prizes for certain goals. Basically, he has done nothing. Which is actually above average for a politicians but not good enough for a C.
Social Agenda: D+. I am concerned by the tendency to trade freedom for the illusion of security is concerning. Also, not everyone is a fundamentalist Christian. I do not think abstinence only works nor do I think stem cells are an abomination. I do think opening funding to religious charities was a wise move as they often prove to be fiscally responsible (used to operating on tight budgets) but have to urge careful over site.
Military: B-. He is a strong supporter financially and in lip service, clearly has great faith in the military and I think he means well by them. However, his (his administration's) poor planning put them in jeopardy and is now stretching it too thin. I believe the military is stronger now than when he took office but at risk of losing any gains by it's over use and unclear mission strategy.
Foreign Policy: D. China is gaining influence in Asia, Hugo in Latin America. Afghanistan and Iraq remain in chaos and most of the world has a more negative view than before. Saving him from an "F" is the admission that we have a problem with Islamic Terrorist and trying to do something about it and doing recoverable damage to most relations.
Stewardship: D. He inherited a country well liked under Bill, got a lot sympathy and support after 911 and has managed to piss away all the goodwill of the world and any goodwill the government had with the people. People view the US government with more suspicion at home and abroad. Saving the "F" is his portrayal of the United State as a powerful stand alone force, at least if we have to be hated they think we might do something about their actions.
Overall: D+. The economy is doing well, there has been an admission that SOMETHING has to be done with Iraq, we are starting to improve foreign relations, and considering the potential for disaster things are going OK.
My Life: B. Good job. Low interest rates. Things have gone as well as could be expected in my world over the last 7 years.
Economics: B+
Fiscal Policy: C- (mostly because of the big deficits)
Environmental & Energy: C- (Oil remains a big problem for us policy-wise.)
Social Agenda: C+ (I'm not sure Bush has much of a social agenda at all.)
Military: D (There's little doubt the military is weaker.)
Foreign Policy: D (The U.S. has lost a lot of credibility with other nations because of its bungling.)
Stewardship: F (The problems the next guy faces are enormous.)
Overall: C-, as befits Bush's grades in college.
My Life: C
Environmental D-
He has supported recycling (republicans get the fact that it is a jobs thang).
He has decimated the EPA's ability to regulate air and water issues, has eliminated or raised the amounts of pollutants that can be discharged by industry and has allowed unprecendented drilling and harvesting in the nation's forests and public lands.
Could you reference some info for me RecycleMichael? I was under the impression that the harvested forest land was already under the control of the USDA (who's goal it is to exploit resources). I am also not aware of any newly designated drilling areas (which is a complain of mine on the energy side). Likewise, I thought his Clear Skies initiative failed and his regs were not implanted in re pollution limits?
I'm sure you pay closer attention to environmental issues than I, so I probably just missed somethings.
Isn't a D- generous? Remember, a D means you get it right 60% of the time. IMO, Bush hasn't gotten anything right 60% of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Isn't a D- generous? Remember, a D means you get it right 60% of the time. IMO, Bush hasn't gotten anything right 60% of the time.
I believe, according to my sources, he has gotten his shoes on the correct feet 60% of the time.....
Oh OK,.... it was actually 30% of the time but cut the guy some slack... he has been under a lot of stress.
My estimation of him was low when he somehow made it into the Oval Office in 2001; over the years, it went lower. After Katrina, I have zero respect for him.
Well, it was a decent discussion. I was going to post something until the three stooges made their appearance. Thread's doomed for sure now.
Well that is what I get for just trying to inject a little humor into the mix....
Although from a few days ago let's have a look at something more akin to the "real deal"....
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/MissionBush.jpg)
5/1/2003..........Today
U.S. Troops Wounded
542...............24,912
U.S. Troops Killed
139...............3,351
Contractors Killed
69................916
Journalists and Media Assistants Killed
11.................167
U.S. Forces in Iraq
150,000.............146,000
Size of Iraqi Security Forces
7,000-9,000............334,300
Number of Insurgents
less than 5,000........~70,000 (Sunni only)
Insurgent Attacks Per Day
8......................148.9
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$79 billion............$421 billion
Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq
75%......................24%
Percentage of Americans who Believe The Iraq War Was “Worth Fighting�
70%.......................34%
Bush’s Overall Job Approval
71%.......................32%
^ Oh, that's right, Rico. I forgot you have over 50 friends who volunteered for Viet Nam, so you are an expert commentator on Iraq.
Mr. Jaynes - so the people's failure to evacuate NO, the cities failure to plan for the inevitable, the state failure to respond, and FEMA's lackluster response is a reflection on the president? I didnt know he was so intimately involved with every cities disaster planning. When did he visit with Tulsa on our tornado response planning?
pmcalk - I wasnt really grading him on a % correct/wrong basis. I guess an F would be everything that could have gone wrong has - a severe negative. C would be maintain the status quo and "A" would be perfectly handled.
Rico:
You're right. Those poor people were way better off before we got there. [xx(]
Approaching two million, including between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi and between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War. An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000. Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared". No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Hussein's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000). Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War. -- Heroes & killers of the 20th century (//%22http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hussein.html%22)
Torture Methods in Iraq
* Medical experimentation
* Beatings
* Crucifixion
* Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
* Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife
* Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
* Branding with a hot iron
* Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
* Pouring boiling water into a rectum
* Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
* Extracting teeth with pliers
* Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents -- DoD (//%22http://defendamerica.mil/specials/june2003/atrocities.html%22)
Economics: A, Really kind of ties into fiscal policy. Tax cuts have stimulated an economy which was slowing down. Job growth is still there, though the media wants you to believe adding well over 250K jobs since the first of the year and 4.5% UE is bad news.
Profits are being made investing in the American workforce in on-going workable businesses, not speculation on tech stocks and investment with borrowed money from IPO's which hit a lot of smaller investors hard with failures.
Fiscal Policy: C, Tax cuts were already on the board prior to 9/11, WOT, Katrina, Wilma, Rita, etc. The cuts have obviously shaken off a sluggish economy he faced when he came into office. More overall tax revenue. Voodoo economics does work.
Deficit is scary, discretionary spending is very liberal when compared to Clinton who is really a fiscal Reaganite. Reagan would have likely taken Bush II to the wood shed for his discretionary non-military spending [;)]
Environmental & Energy: C- on existing resources. Background ostensibly in oil & energy, yet we are paying almost $3.00 a gallon for gas. I realize a President doesn't set the price, but he can push agendas which can impact oil and gas prices. If I were a single-issue voter and anyone but Kerry was running against Bush in '04 I would have voted against him for that singular reason.
A- on renewable energy. If you worked in my business, you would see how much investment has been made and is on the table for ethanol and bio-diesel in the last six years. Most people don't see it unless they are religious readers of the business pages. As of right now we are about at market saturation with bio-D and ethanol. Still more could be done with creating more market demand, but that is a free-market issue. As it stands now, the gov't buys a lot of bio-d for the military. The announcement of a new windmill plant which will employ 450 people in the Tulsa area is good news.
Social Agenda: C, I think Bush has allowed Iraq to bog down a lot of initiatives here in the states. If he has some sort of social agenda, it's been over-shadowed by Iraq. I don't know what all you would cram in here, but some policies I've disagreed with which affect us socially were the bankruptcy reform as I felt it benefitted predatory lenders, and a lack of immigration reform.
Katrina was not a Bush problem, but rather an example of how bad Gov't beaurocracies can screw things up. The only fault I found there was his quick praise of "Brownie".
Military: B-
Foreign Policy: C-, I don't buy the credibility loss with other nations. We are keeping European nations from worrying about terrorism spilling out of the ME for now. C- because the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy makes no sense to me. Get on an airplane and go talk to Syria, Iran, et. al.
Stewardship: C, There are problems for the next President to face, but we should have a robust economy. Stepping into the foreign policy quagmire would be enough dis-incentive for me to run. I do believe he has restored some semblance of honor to the White House (I can hear the laughs now, if you only base it on Iraq and Scooter Libby, then you have missed the big picture of what the honor of the Presidency is all about).
Overall: C+ I think he is very earnest and has strong convictions. If he would have been able to use those qualities on things closer to home, he'd wind up with an A.
I think he could have gone down as one of the more productive Presidents if he would have just kept Saddam on a short leash and put more effort in at home.
Eventually someone was going to have to deal with Saddam, and there WAS enough fear at the time of what he might be able to sell to terrorists. Either they never existed or they were "exported". There were far more people than the Bush Admin who had those same fears and helped sell the war in Iraq.
My Life: A, private sector and government investment have helped in my line of work. I'm salary plus bonus on sales. It's been a good ride the last few years.
And the U.S. takes the high road....
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world.
U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
And the U.S. takes the high road....
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world.
U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.
[}:)] You must be blind.
FYI, posting material from other websites without attributing credit to its author is plagiarism.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
And the U.S. takes the high road....
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world.
U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.
Good suggestion for you Nellie: Why waste your breath with us? Next time you pass a few returning troops at TIA, why don't you confront them about being torturers, sodomites, and impress them with your knowledge and applicability of the Geneva Convention?
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
And the U.S. takes the high road....
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world.
U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.
[xx(]
(http://a.im.craigslist.org/AR/CO/74WXXMK9keTpAQwiT80iWQbgAVul.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Mr. Jaynes - so the people's failure to evacuate NO, the cities failure to plan for the inevitable, the state failure to respond, and FEMA's lackluster response is a reflection on the president? I didnt know he was so intimately involved with every cities disaster planning. When did he visit with Tulsa on our tornado response planning?
pmcalk - I wasnt really grading him on a % correct/wrong basis. I guess an F would be everything that could have gone wrong has - a severe negative. C would be maintain the status quo and "A" would be perfectly handled.
As for the "President," he could have overlooked politics, and loosened the bureaucracy a bit. Hey, there's plenty of blame to go around, from the local level to the Federal level.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
And the U.S. takes the high road....
Each day brings more information about the appalling abuses inflicted upon men and women held by the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world.
U.S. forces have used interrogation techniques including hooding, stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, noise and light, and depriving them of sleep—in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
This apparently routine infliction of pain, discomfort, and humiliation has expanded in all too many cases into vicious beatings, sexual degradation, sodomy, near drowning, and near asphyxiation. Detainees have died under questionable circumstances while incarcerated.
[continued]...This must end. Torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading practices should be as unthinkable as slavery. U.S. Department of Defense officials have announced that certain stress interrogation techniques will no longer be used in Iraq. But President Bush should ban all forms of abuse during interrogation in Iraq and everywhere else that the United States holds people in custody. It is wrong in itself and leads to further atrocities.
- Human Rights Watch. Online Data Source:
http://hrw.org/campaigns/torture.htm,
last visited 5/11/2007.
Speaking of torture, Gen. Petraeus has come out publicly against it. Here's a letter from a few days ago:
10 May 2007
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen serving in Multi-National Force—Iraq:
Our values and the laws governing warfare teach us to respect human dignity, maintain our integrity, and do what is right. Adherence to our values distinguishes us from our enemy. This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground. This strategy has shown results in recent months. Al Qaeda's indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it.
In view of this, I was concerned by the results of a recently released survey conducted last fall in Iraq that revealed an apparent unwillingness on the part of some US personnel to report illegal actions taken by fellow members of their units. The study also indicated that a small percentage of those surveyed may have mistreated noncombatants. This survey should spur reflection on our conduct in combat.
I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq.
I also know firsthand the bonds between members of the "brotherhood of the close fight." Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge. As hard as it might be, however, we must not let these emotions lead us—or our comrades in arms—to commit hasty, illegal actions. In the event that we witness or hear of such actions, we must not let our bonds prevent us from speaking up.
Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary. Certainly, extreme physical action can make someone "talk"; however, what the individual says may be of questionable value. In fact our experience in applying the interrogation standards laid out in the Army Field Manual (2-22.3) on Human Intelligence Collector Operations that was published last year shows that the techniques in the manual work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees.
We are, indeed, warriors. We train to kill our enemies. We are engaged in combat, we must pursue the enemy relentlessly, and we must be violent at times. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight, however, is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also all human beings. Stress caused by lengthy deployments and combat is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign that we are human. If you feel such stress, do not hesitate to talk to your chain of command, your chaplain, or a medical expert.
We should use the survey results to renew our commitment to the values and standards that make us who we are and to spur re-examination of these issues. Leaders, in particular, need to discuss these issues with their troopers—and, as always, they need to set the right example and strive to ensure proper conduct. We should never underestimate the importance of good leadership and the difference it can make.
Thanks for what you continue to do. It is an honor to serve with each of you.
David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding
Looks like we may have the right man for the job over there. His letter is well written, to the point, and perfectly tailored for his audience.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Al Qaeda's indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it.
Wait a second, I thought Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq...
Not before we invaded.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Al Qaeda's indiscriminate attacks, for example, have finally started to turn a substantial portion of the Iraqi population against it.
Wait a second, I thought Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq...
And now, like Tribbles, they just keep on replicating themselves....
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Not before we invaded.
For christ's sake, how can you be so uninformed?
Zarqawi (the now-dead leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq) was in Baghdad
BEFORE we arrived in 2003. Saddam was giving safe passage to Taliban refugees from the Afghanistan war. These are proven facts and there are numerous news reports backing those statements up. Iraq was not their base of operations, that was Afghanistan, but they certainly were given safe passage.
The more I discuss these issues with you people it's becoming more clear to me that several of you just pull things out of your a$$ without having done any research whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
And now, like Tribbles, they just keep on replicating themselves....
Yes. And the only way to get them to stop is to give in and walk away. We can never retaliate or deal heavyhandedly with a rouge terrorist state ever again, because it just upsets them. What nonsense.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Not before we invaded.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/
Getting back to the topic at hand, it's interesting to see today that Congress' approval rating is lower than the President's...
What ever happened to the "First 100 hours"?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by mr.jaynes
And now, like Tribbles, they just keep on replicating themselves....
Yes. And the only way to get them to stop is to give in and walk away. We can never retaliate or deal heavyhandedly with a rouge terrorist state ever again, because it just upsets them. What nonsense.
I never said that and you know it.
So what is your point. You've made that damned tribbles comment several times now. What are you trying to say?
What report card would be complete unless praise was given for what one has done right.
Senators strike deal on immigration overhaul
By Donna Smith 16 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A bipartisan group of U.S. senators reached agreement on Thursday on an immigration reform bill that would legalize millions of illegal immigrants and establish a merit-based system for future migrants, lawmakers said.
The agreement sets the stage for what is expected to be a passionate Senate debate over immigration and lead the way for what would be one of the most significant accomplishments of
President George W. Bush's final term.
Good, so we can move beyond Iraq for awhile and deal with the big elephant which has been sitting over in the corner for the last six years.
I've been critical of President Bush on many issues. But his conciliatory stance on immigration (i.e. amnesty) is right on the money, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I've been critical of President Bush on many issues. But his conciliatory stance on immigration (i.e. amnesty) is right on the money, IMO.
I agree with you on this rwarn. Although many of the President's core base may not.
If it goes through his approval number may even go up.
I think a lot of his core support is starting to wake up to the reality of there having to be some sort of amnesty to make this fly- not just politically, but logistically. I'll support it, ONLY if a tighter border is the first priority in the plan and it doesn't include chain migration for extended families.
You can't just round-up and boot-out 12mm people that easily and I don't think we really need to.
I just hope it's more than a symbolic piece of legislation like the '86 reform act. Without oversight and compliance by employers, all it really accomplished was to grant legal status to a few million or so immigrants and obviously didn't stem the tide of illegal immigration as it was thought it would do.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
So what is your point. You've made that damned tribbles comment several times now. What are you trying to say?
It's a "Star Trek" analogy. Like the Tribbles on "Star Trek," there are so many of these Jihadists, with more joining their ranks quite regularly. It is as if you take out this stronghold or that (and that in no way is a bad thing, I may add), and they keep coming back with more followers.
I think in battling them, we are not just battling irregular forces in the context of war-we are battling an idea or a set of ideas. And so we must go to work on winning the hearts and minds of the followers on a village-by-village basis, and make sure we make a good case when we do. Because if we don't win their hearts and minds, the insurgents will.
I caught part of Savage Nation last night as I was driving home. Savage contends that Bush kept Rummy in office long enough so that he could get a Democratic Congress that would help him pass his immigration reform.
Oddest theory I've heard so far as to why Rummy wasn't jack-booted sooner.
quote:
It's a "Star Trek" analogy. Like the Tribbles on "Star Trek," there are so many of these Jihadists, with more joining their ranks quite regularly. It is as if you take out this stronghold or that (and that in no way is a bad thing, I may add), and they keep coming back with more followers.
I know where the reference comes from, I just don't see how it applies...
quote:
I think in battling them, we are not just battling irregular forces in the context of war-we are battling an idea or a set of ideas. And so we must go to work on winning the hearts and minds of the followers on a village-by-village basis, and make sure we make a good case when we do. Because if we don't win their hearts and minds, the insurgents will.
So let me get this straight. Not only are you not arguing for us to leave, but you're arguing for an overwhelming influx of Americans on the ground to meet with these people and attempt to educate them?
What makes you think they are in the business of diplomacy in the first place? I think it's obvious that they aren't interested in what you're proposing at all, as they have told us as much to our faces.
I think John Wayne said it best when he said, "When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." The problem is, we don't have the will to apply that kind of pressure. There are too many people playing politics with the situation for that to happen.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
It's a "Star Trek" analogy. Like the Tribbles on "Star Trek," there are so many of these Jihadists, with more joining their ranks quite regularly. It is as if you take out this stronghold or that (and that in no way is a bad thing, I may add), and they keep coming back with more followers.
I know where the reference comes from, I just don't see how it applies...
quote:
I think in battling them, we are not just battling irregular forces in the context of war-we are battling an idea or a set of ideas. And so we must go to work on winning the hearts and minds of the followers on a village-by-village basis, and make sure we make a good case when we do. Because if we don't win their hearts and minds, the insurgents will.
So let me get this straight. Not only are you not arguing for us to leave, but you're arguing for an overwhelming influx of Americans on the ground to meet with these people and attempt to educate them?
What makes you think they are in the business of diplomacy in the first place? I think it's obvious that they aren't interested in what you're proposing at all, as they have told us as much to our faces.
I think John Wayne said it best when he said, "When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." The problem is, we don't have the will to apply that kind of pressure. There are too many people playing politics with the situation for that to happen.
Libs don't want troops on the ground in harm's way and they despise the fundamentalists.
Here's a good solution:
Pull the troops out and send in Christian missionaries with Bible tracts. They will be well-treated and will have the nation converted in no time.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
It's a "Star Trek" analogy. Like the Tribbles on "Star Trek," there are so many of these Jihadists, with more joining their ranks quite regularly. It is as if you take out this stronghold or that (and that in no way is a bad thing, I may add), and they keep coming back with more followers.
I know where the reference comes from, I just don't see how it applies...
quote:
I think in battling them, we are not just battling irregular forces in the context of war-we are battling an idea or a set of ideas. And so we must go to work on winning the hearts and minds of the followers on a village-by-village basis, and make sure we make a good case when we do. Because if we don't win their hearts and minds, the insurgents will.
So let me get this straight. Not only are you not arguing for us to leave, but you're arguing for an overwhelming influx of Americans on the ground to meet with these people and attempt to educate them?
What makes you think they are in the business of diplomacy in the first place? I think it's obvious that they aren't interested in what you're proposing at all, as they have told us as much to our faces.
I think John Wayne said it best when he said, "When you got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." The problem is, we don't have the will to apply that kind of pressure. There are too many people playing politics with the situation for that to happen.
Libs don't want troops on the ground in harm's way and they despise the fundamentalists.
Here's a good solution:
Pull the troops out and send in Christian missionaries with Bible tracts. They will be well-treated and will have the nation converted in no time.
Although I think sending missionaries to various third world nations is an amateurist form of foreign poilicy at its worst, THAT is an even better solution to the fighting going on there! I'm glad I thunk of it!