When you have bullets from an AK-47 flying past your head by someone hiding behind a child I must disagree with you - the soldiers involved do go through a process of validation - they are not robots they are humans - and with the firepower you hold in your hands and the destruction it causes with sometimes unintended consequences you better know why you are there.

All soldiers are treated as robots when it serves the writer and as human when it serves the writer. One of these positions is correct one is not.

you know what i find interesting is when they attack bush and when you bring up that the other side did the same thing. it becomes we are not talking about them we are talking about bush.

I am not going to address all of your points - and I am not in disagreement with most of your approach I would just like to add my opinion based on real experience for us to ponder.




Have you ever eperienced a B-52 bombing run or a 130 Gunship opening up - your analogy is on point - a tidal wave. That is what we did and much more - the problem is to think you can fully suppress any enemy is just not going to happen without going nuclear.



Only works until someone else comes up with more money or more importantly an ideology that transcends money.



No such thing - never has been and never will be - intel is an art not a science. (I have many years experience in black ops experience - haven't come close to establishing "air-tight intel".



Consensus - the most illusive of all - usually always leads to a diluting of your original intent and tactic which is okay if you can live with that.



Oxymoron

When you have bullets from an AK-47 flying past your head by someone hiding behind a child I must disagree with you - the soldiers involved do go through a process of validation - they are not robots they are humans - and with the firepower you hold in your hands and the destruction it causes with sometimes unintended consequences you better know why you are there.All soldiers are treated as robots when it serves the writer and as human when it serves the writer. One of these positions is correct one is not.

I agree with you on both fronts, really. I think it's well said. Thanks.

I was implying that if Clinton had prevented the 9/11 attack like he should have, we wouldn't be at war. Therfor there would be less of a Bush sucks attitude.All Clinton had to do was his job, is it asking much? Then listening to his and other reactions to how Bush conducted things was pathetic, talk about hypocrisy.

Now, that is spin. Unfortunately, I don't think one persons ineptness justifies another persons incompetance.

Bush lied about everything to the American people...terrorists have been and always be around...as long as you have any government that suppresses any peoples vision of what life should be...the people will rebel. Even more so when you have a head of government that lies about everything and opposes the people.



I find it extremely difficult to believe that considering the spy satellites we have circling the planet. And then theres the fact that Saddam has been a U.S.A. puppet for years handled by the CIA. I'm pretty sure they knew what he had since most of it was given to him by our own government.


Just the thought of him actually thinking/believing that "he" is going to "liberate humanity" from anything scares me more than any terrorist. We would be better off liberated from him. All he has done is cause the unneccessary deaths of innocent iraqis and American troops and created more terrorism than has ever existed resulting in even more innocent people dying. I'll bet all the dead people feel real liberated.



I will support any president that can first liberte his own country from evil...poverty...greed...and so on before he starts entertaining the unobtainable lofty goal of liberating humankind from evil. But he would be so busy with that that I wouldn't have to worry about it.

We need saving from George Bush....not evil. Just the sight of this man nauseates me.

during this war around 100,000 iraqis have died that is in 4 years. under saddam up to 150,000 iraqis were dieing a year.

Ranger,
I don't think we are really that far off, which probably does surprise you. But most military people I've read suggest Rumsfeld's approach, more tactical, was a problem over Powell's approach, hit the f****ks hard. I'm not saying an intel case needs to be air tight, though I did use those words. But, I think given the evidence, it should have been WAY WAY BETTER than what it was. To have a list of hundreds of targets you can't even prioritize (which is what happened to Kaye) is beyond normal grey area. At one point, we had a chance to buy off a division of Iraqi army with $20 stipens. It would have cost us 1 million. We couldn't get it together, and the result was those Iraqi soldiers became haters of the US. We have to be smart. Electricity goes a long way in winning people over. I think when you lead, you have to give ground to the middle. That's how you come to agreements that work. Otherwise, you're just forcing your views on everyone else -- and they don't like that.

You asked for a list. Give me some credit for giving it to you! And look at the great discussion it generated! We'll never agree precisely on every point, but the fact is, there are real gaps here Bush should have anticipated. Not doing so, in my book, hurts his credibility as a leader.
M

You assume I am huffy and I am not. You did not however answer my question.

I thought I did. You articulate the position of the oil industry very well. I've worked photographing for them on Capitol Hill, so I know their positions. I'm not saying that's bad or wrong, just that it is their position word for word. So, I wondered if you worked for them. As I said, I think technology will be the solution to oil. Hopefully, sooner rather than later.

Well everyone I must run - thank you for the brisk discussion - Joe - hang in there - you and all the others have a right to your opinions and should continue to voice them - I for one fought for our right to do so, without hesitation, so do me a favor and use it as well as your right to vote when the time comes. I so wish there were answers that would resolve the sad issues that we and our children must face in our world.I say this - if someone comes along that has these answers and more importantly the ability to implement them - they have my vote!To all - Have a Happy Thanksgiving from me and my family to you and yours.

Thanks, Ranger. God be with you and your family and have the happiest of holidays. I don't think we are so far apart. I'm happy to have your thoughts and appreciate your time.
M

Thank you. I gotta run, too I'm gettin' in trouble with the family. Peace.
M

I feel sorry that you had to see "things nobody should ever have to see"....nobody should have had to have seen them, and that entirely is my point. It's not that I do not support the troops, because I admire and respect those whose are doing bloody awful jobs under the most atrocious conditions. No, what I can not support is the mentality behind sending them there in the first place....the gun happy warmongers who command from the safety of their electoral offices.

I don't know how much clearer I have to make it, war is a terrible thing and nobody's loved one should ever be sent into the vilest of conditions by another who hasn't got the balls to do it himself. If politicians and presidents had to go to war, there would be no fucking wars for our innocents to die or be maimed in.

As for me not having seen the cost first-hand on a battlefield, I have too much love, respect and compassion for my fellow man not to know how horrific it is....and I have been touched enough by the misery of war to know I would never, ever wish anyone to have to endure one single moment of war. I have friends who eventually died horrible deaths as a result of Vietnam related issues....one I had to help many a time because both his hands were blown off by a grenade, not to mention one lung and most of his stomach/intestines thus requiring a colostomy bag. Imagine having to deal with that, no hands, no wife or family to help. He eventually died an awful, painful and lonely death, and I didn't have to imagine having to deal with his injuries, etc...I often dealt with them.

Do not misunderstand me, I know troops in war zones must have 100% plus commitment and dedication for each-other and the task at hand....I never questioned this....what I do question is why they even need to be there art all, why all that energy can't be channeled and devoted to their families/loved ones at home.

The troops are true heroes, for all they do and everything they sacrifice because of the lies, whims and fancies of another....that other who will eventually take all the credit for any positives (which in war are always questionable) that may arise, and attribute any blame due to the generals troops and other subordinates who can take the fall.

Does that explain well enough why Bush is Bad????