Bush tells Iraqis to get their crap together

Off course are these people complacent. They have had one of the most stringed feudal systems known to man and that had been going on for the last 1000 years. I just upsets me that this is common information, but never taken into the equation.
I am under the impression that high command made a hugh over-simplifiction of things. They thought it was simple add and subtract, while they should have studied quantum mechanics! And now it's like: oh well, we have tried and they are so lazy. Let's wrap things up and see how things go from there! Didn't Sun Tsu say "know your enemy"? I figure that that lesson wasn't taken into account, was it?
 
I hope he reads something more relative to today's "Art of War" such as the art of deploying and using tactical nukes. Whose boomers are located where and how to take them out after a preemptive strike.
 
But Missileer, think of the pr-possibilities!! Putin does some judo on prime time television and the Russkies loved it. Picture George on his ranch in a comfortable chair, reading one of the masters pieces! His boots on the table and his shotgun next to his chair..... He'd make a great commander-in-chief!
 
I can see it now...Of course, I haven't been giving due credit to President Bush...I really think that he has done well with the problems faced...I dont know if Kerry could have done better, but we got Bush and he did fine...Im sorry if I have been misleading anyone into thinking that I dont think our President has done a great job with the enormous challenges like 9/11, Katrina, and the War In Iraq....
 
Hahahahaha too late Henderson!! Is that a Democrat-in-the-closet I smell there?? I can smell those from miles away.....
 
Ted said:
Hahahahaha too late Henderson!! Is that a Democrat-in-the-closet I smell there?? I can smell those from miles away.....


Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But if he is what of it? I personally don't hold with any particular political view. I like some of the stuff repubs do and the dems do but I don't agree with both of them all the time. . . . I think that makes sense.
 
That is way I am all for a multi party system. I allows for more hue's of the political color. A bi-party system curbs the possibilities too much in my opinion.
 
Ted said:
That is way I am all for a multi party system. I allows for more hue's of the political color. A bi-party system curbs the possibilities too much in my opinion.

And too many clog the lines. Three (main parties) is about the most I would be willing to support.
 
PJ24 said:
And too many clog the lines. Three (main parties) is about the most I would be willing to support.

I agree. People would start getting too caught up in the red tape to actually get anything done. Heck look at the US and what congress has to go through sometimes. Look at what Iraq is going through now. Now, double or quadruple that and you will have complete mayhem.
 
PJ24 said:
And too many clog the lines. Three (main parties) is about the most I would be willing to support.

The funny thing is that I see it the other way around. These enormous parties represent some different people, that I doubt if there's a specific "raison d'etre" of this party. I'd like to compare it with the Uomo Universalis during the Rennaissance. He was often a painter, writer, scientist, politician, soldier and engineer. To be truely great you have to pick one or two at the most, nowadays you can't be everuthing at the same time!

If all the parties have their facts straight I reckon that they can be more efficient then these collosal parties. Less people, flatter party hiearchy and easier lines of communications will make it less clogged up.... at least imo.
 
Actually no, his "don't ask don't tell" bs was an absolute brain fart of the Nth degree. I have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals serving but his "compromise" was a failure of character. It put people in an untenable position making many service members easy targets for blackmail and subversion by enemies of the US.

Furthermore his use of the military as a private security and humanitarian aid organisation was a bastardisation of his status as CINC. The debacle in Somalia was a result of his failure to commit to action when necessary instead of always performing in terms of half-measures and indecisiveness.

And lastly the man and his administration held the military in open contempt. I miss him like a hole in the head.
 
Ted said:
The funny thing is that I see it the other way around. These enormous parties represent some different people, that I doubt if there's a specific "raison d'etre" of this party. I'd like to compare it with the Uomo Universalis during the Rennaissance. He was often a painter, writer, scientist, politician, soldier and engineer. To be truely great you have to pick one or two at the most, nowadays you can't be everuthing at the same time!

If all the parties have their facts straight I reckon that they can be more efficient then these collosal parties. Less people, flatter party hiearchy and easier lines of communications will make it less clogged up.... at least imo.

I'd rather not have 10 weak parties in the fray. It's too much chaos. With three strong parties, each is a serious threat to the other. Any more than that, it starts getting to the point where a guy could get elected with only a small percentage of the vote.

Plus, then I've got five parties in congress, all with their own agendas. You think nothing gets done now? Ha!


Strongbow said:
If only Bill Clinton was still President.

Life would be much worse, yes.
 
Back
Top