Blogcritics: Comments on War On Terrorism: Designed For Failure

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 28 Aug 2004 09:13:50 EDT

Okay, I've had my coffee now and I'm back. The entire world, including many Republicans, recognizes that there would have been no invasion of Iraq without the U. S. steam-rolling Tony Blair and the leaders of numerous smaller nations (Micronesia, for crying out loud?) The entire world recognizes that even in the countries that joined in, it was only the politicians who agreed to say they were in while the majority of citizens in the majority those countries were against doing so (e.g., Britain, Australia). The entire world recognizes that 90% of the deaths and casualties and costs in Iraq are American. The entire world is also aware that Bush's dad did a much better job in the first Gulf War. That used over 500,000 troops and only 24% were American. His son is a loser in coalition-building, too.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:24:28 EDT

What on earth are you talking about, Marc?

Comment by Marc

Sat, 28 Aug 2004 02:50:11 EDT

As far as Unilateral goes at the start of the Iraq war it was far from being unilateral. The G-7 comprises the world's major industrial democracies. Aside from America, there are six other countries. The United Kingdom, Italy and Japan, have troops in Iraq. Three, France, Germany and Canada, do not. A 4 to 3 majority of G-7 nations are members of this so called ''fraudulent coalition.'' Eleven of 19 NATO members have contributed troops. Thirteen of 25 members of the European Union have forces serving inside Iraq. Granted some units are small but the term fraudulent hardly fits unless one is driven by blind ideology or political expediency. Oh... the term "fraudulent coalition" is from many of Kerry's surrogates, (including himself), talking points. It might even be called belittling Also known as calumniatory, or disparaging. and very much like this quote that has your digital fingerprints all over it. It's Michelle Malkin's lying weasel slur, Marc. One of many attributed to you, that I won't embarass you with.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:00:05 EDT

PS, Marc, belittling the opponent is an indication to many that the belittler knows he's in the wrong but doesn't know how to deal with it. And one thing it does not do is strengthen any arguments that you might have. It does get people to take you less seriously, though, and for some that may be enough.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:39:43 EDT

If this administration "went to school on the Russian mistakes" they didn't learn squat - aren't you paying any attention to what's going on in Iraq? "Unilateralist" is the right description.

Comment by Marc

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:33:37 EDT

100,000 US troops? Russia sent in 120,000 and faught to a 10 year stalemate that cost over one million lives. It just could be the US went to school on the Russian mistakes and decided another option would be more productive. That evil unilateralist Bush should have known better I guess. At least in your eyes. And the eyes of "Big Time Patriot." And of course you can produce source documents/evidence that prove Bush knowingly started wars based on personnel interest, can't you? Please provide so we can all be enlightened. Just one note. That evidence should be something other than empty Reynolds Wrap� Aluminum Foil boxes whoses contents were used to fashion cute little hats. You know like signed Bush memos stating how Cheney's Halliburton stock is down and damm "lets start a war Dick!" But upon further review it seems the term "unilateralist" is a misnomer. On the contrary with the introduction of the Proliferation Security Agreement (PSI) he has gone far further than any other administration in the fight against Islamofacist bastards. PSI is playing a key role in curbing and caging North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il. It played a key role in disarming Libya, discovering and rolling up the Pakistani A.Q. Khan nuclear smuggling network, and has become a framework for international military and police exercises organized by the United States. Its membership includes most of the world's largest economic powers, most of the world's largest military powers, and most of the most influential states on earth. The United States, Japan, the United Kingdom, Russia, the Netherlands, France, Australia and Germany are among its 15 member states, and it is one of the pillars of the Bush administration's strategy to both win the war on terrorism and halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As an organization set up to perform a mission that the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency have jointly failed, halting the spread of nuclear weapons, it has the potential of becoming an alternative to the UN itself in coming decades. Notably, all of its members to date are democracies. Unlike the UN who insists on placing dictatorships and terror sponsors as head if it human rights functions. But thanks to the media and Democrats who insist on portraying the Bush administration as "unilateral," you have probably never heard of it. Or care to. They are too busy adjusting their tin-foil hats, or supporting a candidate that offers no better plan than the promise of "doing it better." with France's help.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:35:40 EDT

Why can't the Democrats position the "Bush war presidency" as what it is? It is a complete failure with no chance of success right from the beginning. Another attack before the election would be proof of that. But the Democrats need to start bringing out this administration's performance on the war, the economy and any other metric you care to name. The performance has been terrible, in spite of the right-wing Newspeak.

Comment by Big Time Patriot

Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:08:57 EDT

It is NOT in George Bush's own best interests for the war on terror to be successful. If he doesn't run for re-election as a war president, what would he run as? It is in George's personal best interest if there is another attack before the election. Does George put his personal best interests ahead of the countries best interests? He put himself first when it came to serving his country during the Vietnam War. He put his own interests in terms of cutting his own taxes (and particularly cutting the taxes he would owe when his parents die) ahead of balancing the budget. It's all about what's good for George and ending the war on terror isn't on that list.