President Bush is a Miserable Failure

WalterM140 wrote:

I haven't seen much from you to show your background.

If you weren't such a troll, and actually came here to enjoy a rational
discussion on military aviation, you would be familiar with my background. If
you're new and just discovering these boards then your introduction was
horrible. Starting threads like this one is the sign of troll nothing more.

You don't seem to know
much about command responsibility, that's for sure, or they teach it
differently in the Air Force.

Actually, you're the one lacking...at times. You have flip-flopped between
agreeing with me and arguing Bush was responsible for every infraction
committed by every sevice member. Somehow I think we would be in complete
agreement if Bush were a democrat. And that is also what makes you a troll.

As I indicated, it was nice to hear the editors of the Military Times say
pretty much what I said.

Typical. You can keep saying this, but it won't make it true. The editors
published the article written by a lone individual. Does this mean they agree?
Hardly since the Air Force Times (same company, same editors) publishes several
editorials every week and often two of them argue with each other. Great, one
person agrees with you. Want to bet hes a left wing fanatic like you?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

WalterM140 wrote:

It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us

Well shown? Hardly.


Yes, extensively.

If this guy was such a pussycat then why did the U.N. resolutions continue for
over a decade? Obviously someone thought he was threat. Hell, your boy Billy
Clinton drafted a Congressionally signed mandate that said the official U.S.
foregin policy on Iraq was regime change. Were you outraged when this happened?
Is it OK to draft a policy and not okay to execute it?

Bush planned to invade Iraq because this is a war for Oil.


Troll. Why don't you call him a "neo-con"?

All Bush did was update *Clinton's* Iraq OPLAN. Oh, I'm sorry you did know
that
Clinton "planned to invade Iraq" too?

Proof? I thought weinie Clinton only fired cruise missiles?

It's statements like this that cast doubt on your military service. I'll try to
explain it to you. Clinton's latest Iraq war plan (entitled 1003-98) was simply
updated by the Bush administration (1003-98 became 1003V). This is the "plan
for a war with Iraq" that you read about. The fact that war plans exist (for
numerous countries) and are updated regularly was lost on the leftist fanatics.
Clinton updated 1003 at least twice during his 8 years, interesting I never
read about his "plan for a war with Iraq". Why do you suppose that is?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

WalterM140 wrote:

I know a lot about the military.

No you really don't. You don't understand chain of command or command
responsibility. You don't understand war plans or how, when or why they're
developed. These seem to be very basic issues you have a problem over coming.

These "bad"
decisions were made by both combatant commanders (CDRUSCENTCOM and JTF-7
Commander) in the region and not by anyone above their paygrade.

You can try and show that. Common sense will tell someone it's not true.

So tell me. What was Bush's involvement in any of the supposed screw ups you
brought up? I'll make it easier, tell us what part Bush played in the Fallujah
incident. I want to know details, not you leftist troll crap that says "he's
ultimately responsible". I've already said that myself, but you are no longer
talking about responsibility, you're talking about blame. So tell me what was
Bush's role with CJTF-7 and the argeements that came out of the Fallujah
uprising?

Bush, like
Clinton and his father before him has not involved himself in the
battlefield
tactical decisions.

As we know, Bush is ultimately responsible what is done or not done.

Blah, blah,blah..like a broken record. You don't even know what you mean when
you type that. You are a troll of the worst type. You blame Bush for everything
happening in the U.S. military, yet deflect blame from Clinton for Somalia. You
are a pathetic loser.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It's been well shown that Iraq under Saddam was no threat to us

Well shown? Hardly.

It seems pretty clear that, compared to the other threats, Saddam wasn't
much of a threat. Based on the pre-invasion intelligence estimates, Iraq:
had no ties to Al Qaeda
had no nuclear weapons
probably had chemical or biological weapons but there were no indications
that they were exported

In comparison, Pakistan (nuclear weapons, exporter of nuclear technology,
direct supporter of the Taliban, direct supporter of terrorists in Kashmir)
and Syria (direct supporter of terrorists, suspected of posessing chemical
and biological weapons) would seem to be far greater threats.

Add in that the invasion does not seem to have diminished the threat that
Iraq was originally claimed to pose. It has been claimed, for example, that
the reason that no chemical & biological weapons were found was because they
were all shipped to Syria. If so, those weapons are even more of a threat
than they were before the invasion. Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
material
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...5-wagner_x.htm)
and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

As it was, the invasion seemed to be designed to "get Saddam" rather than
deal with the claimed threat. Either the people at the top knew there wasn't
a real threat or they failed adequately deal with it by providing enough
resources to secure the borders and known nuclear sites.

David Pugh Wrote:

It seems pretty clear that, compared to the other threats, Saddam wasn't
much of a threat.

Compared to the other threats we could deal with quickly, he was #1.

Based on the pre-invasion intelligence estimates, Iraq:
had no ties to Al Qaeda

While he may have had no direct ties to Al Queda, he was a.)supporting
terrorists in the PA and Isreal by paying families of bombers a healthy stipend
("healthy" is obviously relative). Could this outward support of terrorism been
an indication of future or less visable acts? b.) Had a long relationship
(ended in hail of bullets, over what issue we may never know) with Abu Nidal
and several other terrorists. Should we just have waited until one of Saddams
supported terrorists attacked the U.S. or Americans overseas?

Those two questions are not as clear as they seem and if you don't believe the
evidence indicates a potential threat in either one than you obviously don't
believe Hussain to have been a threat.

probably had chemical or biological weapons but there were no indications
that they were exported

I believe, again, this falls into the "lets not wait until they are" catagory.
Bush said the U.S. would be proactive and it appears he meant it.

In comparison, Pakistan (nuclear weapons, exporter of nuclear technology,
direct supporter of the Taliban, direct supporter of terrorists in Kashmir)

Well, to be fair, the Pakastani government, while blind and ignorant was not
exactly the reason Pakistan conducted such activity. After 9/11, Musharif cut
all support to the Taliban and at least it appears that he (and the rest of the
government) were ignorant about the nuclear weapons technology flow out of
Pakistan. As far as Kashmir is concerned, neither India nor Pakistan is absent
blame as far as supporting unlawful combatants. The bottom line on Pakistan,
the people appear to be the ones supporting terrorists, not the government.
Going to war against a people is much harder (and bloodier) than going after a
government.

and Syria (direct supporter of terrorists, suspected of posessing chemical
and biological weapons) would seem to be far greater threats.

Syrian support for terrorists in Isreal and the PA has been overt for decades
and a concern for the U.S. since 9/11 opened our eyes. It isn't that Syria
isn't a threat, its just that they're not as vulnerable and easy to deal with
as Iraq was. I believe Syria's time is coming, whether Bush is office or Kerry,
eventually Syrian ties to a terrorist organization that srtikes the U.S. will
be discovered. Right now Assad is walking a very fine line, he's got pressure
from both sides (extremists in Syria and the U.S.), we'll see which way he
eventually falls.

Add in that the invasion does not seem to have diminished the threat that
Iraq was originally claimed to pose.

Well, one absolute is that Iraqi money will not be funding any more terrorists
or abeting suicide bombers in Isreal.

It has been claimed, for example, that
the reason that no chemical & biological weapons were found was because they
were all shipped to Syria. If so, those weapons are even more of a threat
than they were before the invasion.

I wouldn't argue more of a threat, but surely as big.

Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
material
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...5-wagner_x.htm)
and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

It did two things. 1.)Eliminated a potential or actual supporter of terrorists
and 2.) got U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, a major issue with Muslim
fundamentalists.

As it was, the invasion seemed to be designed to "get Saddam" rather than
deal with the claimed threat.

I believe its because Saddam was the main threat.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
Syrian support for terrorists in Isreal and the PA has been overt for
decades
and a concern for the U.S. since 9/11 opened our eyes. It isn't that Syria
isn't a threat, its just that they're not as vulnerable and easy to deal
with
as Iraq was. I believe Syria's time is coming, whether Bush is office or
Kerry,
eventually Syrian ties to a terrorist organization that srtikes the U.S.
will
be discovered.

The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning small
pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it. We don't
have the resources to do it right now and we've severly limited our options
in the future by destroying any credibility we used to have. Any claim by
the US that pre-emptive action is needed against Syria, Iran, Pakistan
(after the revolution), etc. is going to be dismissed as "that's what you
claimed last time."

Add in the looting of Iraqi nuclear
material
(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...5-wagner_x.htm)
and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

It did two things. 1.)Eliminated a potential or actual supporter of
terrorists
and 2.) got U.S. forces out of Saudi Arabia, a major issue with Muslim
fundamentalists.

Offhand, I'd say Muslim fundamentalists are far more upset with the US now,
given out actions in Iraq, than they were by our forces in Saudi Arabia.
Which is a false argument, anyhow: we could have withdrawn our forces from
Saudi Arabia any time we wanted to. Given Iraq's great success against Iran
(with it had a far stronger army), I'd be really surprised if they could
accomplish much against Saudi Arabia given US air support.

The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning small
pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it. We don't
have the resources to do it right now and we've severly limited our options
in the future by destroying any credibility we used to have. Any claim by
the US that pre-emptive action is needed against Syria, Iran, Pakistan
(after the revolution), etc. is going to be dismissed as "that's what you
claimed last time."

and it is a little hard to see how invading Iraq made us safer.

If US has resources to occupy Syria,Iran,Afghanistan and Pakistan is an
irrelevant question.
After the death of Brzezinskis very ambitious Eurasia dominance plan US is now
basicaly pushed back to Cyprus-Turkey-Iran-Afghanistan line and these four
countries are now the front states in the struggle between Global Financial
and Global Military powers.
Dilemma for US is that Kissingers plan "Seizing Arab Oil" and Brzezinskis
"Eurasia" plans were designed to complement each other so after demise of one
it will be pretty difficult to implement the remaining one.

David Pugh wrote:

The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning small
pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it. We don't
have the resources to do it right now

Agreed and until and unless congress authorizes and increase in U.S. military
force end strength this will continue for quite sometime.

and we've severly limited our options
in the future by destroying any credibility we used to have. Any claim by
the US that pre-emptive action is needed against Syria, Iran, Pakistan
(after the revolution), etc. is going to be dismissed as "that's what you
claimed last time."

Agree. We will have to provide direct proof that lies well outside "our
intelligence estimates...."

Offhand, I'd say Muslim fundamentalists are far more upset with the US now

For the present time you are correct. It appears anger and our presence in the
holy land has been replaced by anger at our presence in Iraq. When our forces
leave Iraq I'd expect somewhat of an improvement.

Which is a false argument, anyhow: we could have withdrawn our forces from
Saudi Arabia any time we wanted to.

If we wanted to abandon Operation SOUTHERN WATCH and leave Hussain to his own
devices in Southern Iraq you're right, but I don't believe that would have been
a positive thing for regional stability.

Given Iraq's great success against Iran
(with it had a far stronger army), I'd be really surprised if they could
accomplish much against Saudi Arabia given US air support.

The problem is, without PSAB you can't get US air support over most of Iraq in
large enough numbers.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
David Pugh wrote:
The sad truth is that even if we caught the Syrians red-handed turning
small
pox virus over to Osama, there isn't much we could do about it.
Agreed and until and unless congress authorizes and increase in U.S.
military
force end strength this will continue for quite sometime.
...
Agree. We will have to provide direct proof that lies well outside "our
intelligence estimates...."

Offhand, I'd say Muslim fundamentalists are far more upset with the US
now
For the present time you are correct. .... When our forces
leave Iraq I'd expect somewhat of an improvement.

In other words, by attacking Iraq, we have taken out Saddam (good), did
little about the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons since, if
they existed in the first place, we didn't make the required effort to
prevent them from being exported to Syria (neutral), allowed the looting of
Iraqi nuclear facilities (bad), tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
threat emerges (bad) and alienated the entire region (bad). Explain to me
again why invading Iraq was a good thing?

If we wanted to abandon Operation SOUTHERN WATCH and leave Hussain to his
own
devices in Southern Iraq you're right, but I don't believe that would have
been
a positive thing for regional stability.

Is there any reason SOUTHERN WATCH couldn't have been run from Kuwait and
Qatar?

David Pugh wrote:

In other words, by attacking Iraq, we have taken out Saddam (good)

Yes.

did
little about the threat of Iraqi chemical and biological weapons since, if
they existed in the first place, we didn't make the required effort to
prevent them from being exported to Syria (neutral)

Not 100% accurate. *If* Saddam managed to export his weapons to Syria (a very
unforseen event by the way that dems seem anxious to exploit as if they knew
this was going to happen) their chance of being used probably just got cut in
half. Syria is much more unlikely than Saddam of using these weapons either
overtly or through a terrorist.

allowed the looting of
Iraqi nuclear facilities (bad)

Allowed? You'll have to show me how we were complicit with the looting of what
were *suspected* facilities. Ask any democrat, they'll tell you Iraq didn't
have any WMD; so what exactly was looted?

tied our hands is a new and more dangerous
threat emerges

I don't follow this one?

and alienated the entire region

Hardly. If we had alienated the entire region, we would not currently be hosted
in nearly every country on the southern shores of the Persian Gulf.

Explain to me
again why invading Iraq was a good thing?

Because it removed a known threat who had a great potential to kill Americans
and our allies.

Is there any reason SOUTHERN WATCH couldn't have been run from Kuwait and
Qatar?

Uhh, because the closer you are to Iraq the less tankers you need. There would
have been no way (unless you built a few more airfields in the region) to put
up the same number of SOUTHERN WATCH sorties every day if most strike aircraft
had to fly from Al Udeid or even Masirah or Thumrait. There just wasn't enough
ramp space for all the tankers you would have needed.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"