Ron say Bush's response had a lot of substance. My question what good is a lot of substance if it isn't really true? Take the statement
After bin Laden - He‘s isolated
Seventy-five percent of his people have been brought to justice.
Bin Laden may have physically sequestered himself, but he remains considerably more popular than President Bush in most of the Arab world. And despite considerable success by U.S. intelligence and allies in Europe, the Middle East and Pakistan in rounding up Qaeda operatives, allied intelligence services concur that al-Qaeda's ranks have swelled a lot faster than they've been denuded, particularly since the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
As The Associated Press reported Oct. 1, Bush was referring to the deaths or arrests of 75 percent of bin Laden's network at the time of the September 11 attacks -- not those who are running the terrorist organization today. The AP also reported that the CIA said earlier in the year two-thirds of those leaders are gone; at his acceptance speech in September, Bush increased his count to three-fourths based on unreleased intelligence data.
Furthermore, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies reported May 25 that the occupation of Iraq has helped al Qaeda recruit more members. The institute quoted "conservative" intelligence estimates as saying that al Qaeda has 18,000 potential operatives and is present in more than 60 countries.
Then there is this statement
essential that we have strong alliances, and we do
There isn't a single Arab country in the coalition, in contrast to the wide Arab participation in the Gulf War. And the U.S. and Britain between them provided more than 90 percent of the troops. Moreover, eight of the countries that initially joined the U.S. have since pulled out their soldiers, and more are expected to follow. Efforts to persuade Muslim countries to send troops have foundered.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
Ron Ackerman said this in post #3 : "Plan to win the peace." What does that mean???
I've been asking around and can't get a good answer and for the life of me I just don't know what it means.
That means a plain for dealing the insurgents who would be likely to try to attack after the declaration that major combat was over. It means having so idea of what to have expected which they did not. If Bush has stated they miscalculated the resolve of the insurgents. What is it that you don't understand exactly?
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
That means a plain for dealing the insurgents who would be likely to try to attack after the declaration that major combat was over.
This is an esclation of war not peace. The war has yet to end.
quote:
It means having so idea of what to have expected which they did not. If Bush has stated they miscalculated the resolve of the insurgents. What is it that you don't understand exactly?
War is unpredictable, not even the best general can predict what will happen next. If they could then there would be no war. It's just empty spin with no basis.
Ron Ackerman said this in post #6 : This is an esclation of war not peace. The war has yet to end.
War is unpredictable, not even the best general can predict what will happen next. If they could then there would be no war. It's just empty spin with no basis.
Your response is empty spin with no substance. You are playing games here Ron. Bush wanted people to believe after Saddam was overthrown and Bush announced major combat was over that we won the war and that peace was at hand. Bush never said after that, that we should know expect to loose almost 10 times the number of troops that died during Major Combat, or that a good part of Iraq would be in the hands of insurgents a year later.
What have anti-zionists and arab terrorists got in common?
Hopefully these questions do spin into bickering and stay focused on the debates: but let me clear something up
I could have told you there would be insurgencies and violent power stuggles in Iraq. I could have told you it would probably be from the Shiite Muslims too. And I'm just an opinionated moron. There are probably people who have studied the Middle East for YEARS who probably could have told you exactly who and where the insurgencies would be. They definitely could have done better than they did. But running and blowing **** up with no plan is NOT GOOD.
Yes war is unpredictable, but it's not that unpredictable.
Kerry had a valid point, no "plan to win the peace."
Whether he could have done better is up in the air, but there was a definite lack of planning, and the Bush administration has failed miserable on that front.
But what does that mean, I am a career military man. I have never heard of "Plan to win the Peace" The plan is to win the WAR. Win the war and the result is peace.
We can argue about how he worded it, the point was, Bush ran headlong into Iraq without thinking of what is going to happen after Saddam is defeated. Kerry is criticizing him for that.
I understand what you mean by war is unpredictable, but the situation in Iraq today was very forseeable.
There was a lot of information warning the President about things that would occur after the fall of Baghdad, and he ignored them all. The aftermath was not a surprise, it was because they just ignored all the strategists that told them what to expect. It's downright incompetence.
I knew the aftermath would be this way also, it was obvious and it was obvious to some of the president's advisors, which he chose to ignore. Bush is just an incompetent dolt and now all these people are dying because of him. Yeah, the insurgents and terrorists are killing people, but because Bush failed to heed the words of the wise.
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.
- Bill Cosby
The guy who takes a chance, who walks the line between the known and unknown, who is unafraid of failure, will succeed.
- Gordon Parks
10-02-2004 04:05 PM
