Bush is having to get back out on the road to sell his war to a public growing increasingly opposed to the failing policy of occupation in Iraq. I watched much of his speech to the VFW in Salt Lake City via C-SPAN today and the tepid applause from the audience throughout the speech indicated it was not going over well. The mayor of Salt Lake City had called for protests of the Bush visit and another mother of a dead GI in Iraq, from the Gold Star Families for Peace, traveled there to speak against the Bush war plan. Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) was all over the news yesterday calling Bush's war "another Vietnam." Humpty dumpty had a great fall, and all the kings horses and all the kings men could not put humpty back together again!
6 comments:
"A Dangerous plan is better than no plan"
Believe it or not, this statement is true. If you're not willing to take a risk, even a major risk in a military setting, every now and then, then you're not going to make it very far in this world.
Another thing, this war is nothing like Vietnam. We've only lost 1800+ troops. Yes, every death is horrible. But it could be A LOT worse. Suck it up and keep moving.
Losing that many troops in a day was normal for World War 2. Hell losing that many in the first 15 minutes of a battle was normal for our Civil War. When bodies start comming home in the hundreds every day we'll have something to talk about. At the rate we're going, it'll take another 150 years to get us up to Vietnam level casualties.
You may be unaware of this, but Americans are not weak fat western cry babies that can't stand the heat. That is a mistake that people have made throughout history. One look at our history, and our current situation in Iraq shows that we are tough, and we are able to adapt to changing situations.
What we have in Iraq is not just a dangerous plan, but a TREMENDOUSLY FLAWED plan. And a tremendously flawed plan is far worse than no plan.
Armies are not nation-builders and peace-keepers. Armies need 3 dimensional targets. At this point, George Bush's de fact motto for our troops is:
"Driving around a getting blown up for freedom."
Armies are not nation-builders and peace-keepers.
That's so true.
You guys lack nuance! We've been doing nation building over a hundred years now. It's just that the Marines and Spec Ops have been doing the majority of the work.
Agreed - a brigade of armor is a fine unit to break their arse and a poor one to hold a host nation's hand while they build their army. But a battalion of light infantry is just what the doctor ordered in that regard. Even better a low profile training team.
Rough men with arms can preserve your culture and give you something to build on. Rare is it when men of culture can man the ramparts against the forces of dark.
Oh, the Phillipines were quite a triumph. The US involvement around the turn of the century, which Teddy Roosevelt saw as a divinely ordained civilizing mission (never mind what the backward natives thought) was a real glowing chapter in the history of enlightenment.
And then there were all those years of support for the benevolent Marcos. Gee, imagine what could have been accomplished with still futher involvement: maybe something along the lines of what the 'rough men with arms' supported by US presidents achieved in Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador or the Dominican Republic.
Oh, and the US involvement in South Korea is not as clear-cut as you make it sound: the US had little problem with dictatorships there in the 70s and 80s.
HEY!
Hush you filthy fascist!
Sorry bout that right winger. Please... tell us Your plan.
I like the original version of 'Humpty Dumpty' myself.
Three score men and three score more
couldn't put Humpty as we was before.
Humpty was (of course you know this) a cannon mounted by the Crown forces on a wall and key to the defense of Upper Whateverswich. Cromwell's men knocked the thing down with a few well placed shots and the town fell because the Crown couldn't remount the weapon.
Post a Comment