Flipflop update

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this Jenfly01?

if it is, then it's a kinder gentler Jenfly. Just as partisan, but at least with better and more courteous discussion - it's a good thing, don't knock it

Who's knocking it? As for kinder gentler..we'll see.

[SwampGod 0]

Quote

But back on topic.... If every day when you got up you heard the Mullahs... saying what a dumb shit OBL is and how he was the worst leader the Muslim world has ever had... Would you be encouraged to continue the fight because you knew it was only a matter of time before we defeated him? Or would you think we were losing and needed to pull our troops out?

dunno if this is truly on topic, but i'll attempt to reply. are you suggesting that American criticism of Bush in a time of war only adds fuel to the terrorists' fire? if so...

1) Terrorists hear both sides
Just as terrorists and Iraqi dissidents hear about Americans who don't support the war, they hear about those that do.

If the war has solid support, most of what they'll hear is that support. If it doesn't, we've got bigger problems than worrying about puffing up the hopes of a few dissidents.

2) Our national debate on the war is not the big news you imply.
travel a bit. the criticism of bush and american policy is coming from everywhere, not just the US. international protests against Bush are much bigger international news than a democratic dialogue going on within the US.

3) Stopping domestic reporting would not stop the flow of information
most of the overseas reporting comes from places OTHER than the US. it would be arrogant to assume everyone gets their news from CNN and ignorant to assume the same information wouldn't come from somewhere else.

4) There has to be a time for such dialogue
if this "War on Terror" is going to be going on for a very long time, does that mean all criticism is supposed to be suppressed until it's over? when and how are "patriotic" americans supposed to express their views?

5) The debate must happen to guarantee our long-term freedoms
if someone, even if he's the president, is doing something that should be examined, commented on, and even critiqued, it is our responsibility to look at the problem and address it. that does mean public dialogue.

6) The debate might just help our international standing
The fact that the rest of the world does see SOME challenge of Bush means they don't completely hate our entire country. we're still the biggest and best out there (in nearly every respect), but we can't afford to have an entire world against us.

Conclusion) Does the challenge of a President's ideas give hope to those who resist him? Sure. Which is why dictators and tyrants have long squelched public criticism. No matter the idea, there will be those that oppose it. But if the idea is good enough, it will succeed (and likely even be improved by listening to some of the critism).

Please let me know if I've misunderstood you, but I find it very hard to believe public debate about the war has led to our inability to control the situation because we've gotten some terrorists' hopes up.

-eli

[masterblaster72 0]

Quote

Funny how in a thread about flip-flopping, you point out my consistency.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Nice post. Thanks for the thought you put into it. Debate is healthy and necessary in a free society. Hatred and ridicule at a time of war isn't productive and only serves to encourage our enemies.

-

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>Or should you set a time table and stick with it even as things change?

You should set a timetable and try to meet it. If you fail, then you set another one and try to meet _that._ If you fail enough then you get someone else to do the job.

If you got a bill from the phone company, and they said "pay it whenever; there's no due date or late fees" when would you pay it?

Interesting comparison. Who would you suggest could plan and foresee this large of operation well enough to be able to plan good enough to satisfy your requirments?

A massive question, but here goes.

Initially, decide why you as a leader are so prone to want to go to war. You're mad at an independant operative, so you want to conquer a leader. Does that make sense? Was there an ulterior motive? Are you just making a statement to the world?

Next, if you decide you need to attack, conquer, change the entire government, or whatever the agenda, you then need to establish the logistics of the mission. With this, you would establish the cost, the time, and the loss potential.

You need to establish whet the agenda is in order to establish any/all of what the protocol and logistics are going to be. Are we there for another Viet Nam? Are we there as a Gulf War action to correct and fly out?

Things aren't that simple so that we can just play em by ear and that's exactly what Bush did, he decided he wanted to go to war, then decided why and how long after we were in there. I believe Bush wanted to be a war president at whatever cost; even Reagan wasn't that arrogant.

But that is a general overview of how a president should responsibly go to war, mission, agenda, logistics, etc..... where were these?

Wow, I did not know you could read minds?? I AM impressed............

How does that infer that I'm reading minds? I just gave an overview of a president going into war.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just a friendly reminder to Bush supporters that it's time to 180 on the whole timetable thing. Summary -
June 2005: Timetable is bad, helps the enemy
January/March 2006: Timetable is set and is a good thing

-----------------
No Iraq withdrawal timetable - Bush
Olivier Knox
Sat, 25 Jun 2005
US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari on Friday ruled out setting a date for pulling US forces out of Iraq amid a rising death toll and shrinking US support for the war.

. . .

"Why would you say to the enemy: 'Here's a timetable. Just go ahead and wait us out'?" Bush asked rhetorically. "It doesn't make any sense to have a timetable."
------------------
Bush Sets Target for Transition in Iraq
Country's Troops to Take Lead This Year

By Peter Baker
Tuesday, March 14, 2006; 11:36 AM

President Bush vowed yesterday to turn over most of Iraq to newly trained Iraqi troops by the end of this year, setting a specific benchmark as he kicked off a fresh drive to reassure Americans alarmed by the recent burst of sectarian violence.

------------------

As situations change should not a good leader adjust his/her position/time table/plan of attack? I am not talking just about Bush.

Or should you set a time table and stick with it even as things change?

Very fair question; and yes, EVERYONE should remain open to change and the possibilities it offers. The problem is that this administration has executed so poorly and made such ineffective initial decisions, that they will not get out of the hole they are in.

Funny thing is, with such poor performance, real change could have been a way out; but instead they have dug in their heels with a stay-the-course mentality.

This has to be the worst administration in my lifetime when it comes to imposing their own personal values on our citizenry. I thought they were supposed to represent us; not say whatever it takes to get elected and then impose their divinely inspired personal goals on all of us.

It's very good to see the number of people fed up with it is growing.

I start to read your post, I get to middle of the first pharagraph and I quit because I do not agree with your premise.........

I'm reading minds, his premise disagrees with you: so what is your argument? To avoid is to agree with, unless you post some kind of response.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Is this Jenfly01?

if it is, then it's a kinder gentler Jenfly. Just as partisan, but at least with better and more courteous discussion - it's a good thing, don't knock it

It's not

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

GravityMaster has a history of blaming the left for this administration's inability to conduct this war effectively.

and you have a long history of blaming everything on Bush. Look at me as a counterbalance to the hysterical left.

Edited to add: Funny how in a thread about flip-flopping, you point out my consistency.

How is the left to blame for the gaffs of the last 5 years? Please list.

Is this Jenfly01? Something mighty familiar here and I noticed you just registered recently.

I'm not blaming the left exclusively. I'm saying they are complicit.

Here's a post a few down from the one Masterblaster attempted to mischaractrize me with:

Quote

I put a lot of blame on Bush. I'm pissed off about our border security and I'm pissed off about the way he has conducted the war. Were Bush able to run again, I probably wouldn't vote for him unless the Dems ran someone like Kerry or Dean again.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1799938#1799938

But back on topic. I have said this about 3 times so far and haven't gotten an answer yet. If every day when you got up you heard the Mullahs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan saying what a dumb shit OBL is and how he was the worst leader the Muslim world has ever had, would you conclude we had won? Would you be encouraged to continue the fight because you knew it was only a matter of time before we defeated him? Or would you think we were losing and needed to pull our troops out?

Quote

Is this Jenfly01? Something mighty familiar here and I noticed you just registered recently.

It’s not.

Quote

I'm not blaming the left exclusively. I'm saying they are complicit.

Becauuuuuuse? Kinda hard to blame us when you own the House, the Senate, the White House and have an overwhelming majority in the US Sup Ct. Not sure you’ve established a basis for that assertion.

Quote

Here's a post a few down from the one Masterblaster attempted to mischaractrize me with:

OK, so what? Here is my question: How is the left to blame for the gaffs of the last 5 years? Please list.

Quote

But back on topic. I have said this about 3 times so far and haven't gotten an answer yet. If every day when you got up you heard the Mullahs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan saying what a dumb shit OBL is and how he was the worst leader the Muslim world has ever had, would you conclude we had won? Would you be encouraged to continue the fight because you knew it was only a matter of time before we defeated him? Or would you think we were losing and needed to pull our troops out?

Gee, and I thought the topic was: Flipflop update

OBL is a leader of the Muslim world? Which country does he govern? I thought he was a nomadic millionaire who had an army and participated in local wars and international terrorism. How do you assume that these people say OBL is a dumbshit? I don’t know if we ever defeat/capture him, or if it matters. Al Quaidi (sp) has an organizational hierarchy that would take over and the power would be handed off to other members. The key to the city doesn’t reside in the capture of OBL, we had terrorism before him and we’ll have it long after he’s gone.

We can’t win but we can lose a lot. Certain matters are damage control issues. I wonder how many miles of border security we could have secured by now if we spent the 300 or so billion bucks on that instead of in Iraq? The key is home security rather than stomping elsewhere.