Originally Posted By fkurucz The silver lining with Colorado's weak job growth is that it helped stem the inflow of new people to Colorado.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << Yeah - and we're battling insurgents in iraq. And n-o-t-h-i-n-g else. That's bush's "global war on terror". >> I guess you have forgotten Afghanistan and are not aware that we share intel with nations all over the world in the fight against the Muslims. The point is that America and GW Bush are not causing terrorism as the left likes to claim. Islam is causing terrorism and they are striking all over the globe, all in the name of Allah. The thing about Bush is that he has never stopped fighting the war on terror even while most people have tried to ignore it or say it is not real. This is why history will be very kind to Bush as is is to Lincoln.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo Sorry to get back to this so late. RoadTrip and JohnS1 hit the nail square on the head; that is exactly what I was talking about. <<What exactly are you advocating for?>> I’m not “advocating†anything gadzuux. I’m just calling it like I see it. It seems like so many Americans want it all, they want to win the war and have few, if any, casualties (collateral or otherwise). I don’t think this can happen considering the enemy we face and the tactics they use. We either have to fight to win or get out of there. I just don’t know which is better. I understand that we are a nation built on principles; much more so in the past few decades. We are supposed to the great example of a civilized society—--the “shining city on a hill.†Resorting to the level of barbarity of the terrorists and many insurgents make us no better than they are. But the alternative may not be any better. Principled and dead is just dead with a nice epitaph. But by losing our principles we sacrifice our indentity, what makes America unique. Again, I’m not advocating anything gadzuux, just expressing why I feel we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I guess you have forgotten Afghanistan << I haven't forgotten afghanistan at all - <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13819588/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13 819588/</a> Rumsfeld offers upbeat outlook in Kandahar >> Lt. Gen. Carl Eikenberry, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, says that for now, the Taliban is back, and in some respects, bigger than ever. “The Taliban is more organized than they were last year,†Eikenberry says. “And they have more fighters in certain areas." Some 23,000 American forces are in Afghanistan today. As much as Rumsfeld may want to start bringing them home, U.S. military officials say with the recent surge in violence and a determined Taliban, it's not likely anytime soon. But Rumsfeld remains optimistic the Taliban will be defeated. “There isn't any reason in the world why this country can’t succeed,†he says. Outside Kabul, there is little visible evidence of improvements in infrastructure or services since the Taliban regime was ousted in late 2001. That has allowed forces loyal to the hard-line Islamic regime to regain strength and sympathy in their former strongholds in the poorer southern provinces of Uruzgan, Helmand, Zabul and Kandahar. The Taliban also is being fueled by the return of a flourishing drug trade. Afghanistan produces 90 percent of the world’s heroin supply with its poppy crop, and the profits of drug trafficking are helping fund the militants. << I'm sure you that that "progress is being made every day" in afghanistan too. But we're not seeing that. We're seeing the gains we acheived in 2002 being lost again. It seems to be the 'rumsfeld doctrine' - we take an area and then all but walk away and allow it to return to enemy control. Four years into afghanistan, we're in a worse position now than we were when we started.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 It occurs to me that during WWII, the full support of the media helped to create a positive, "we can do it" feeling toward a war that many were unsure initially about becoming involved in. Look at old newsreels and reports between features at movie theaters from that period - all positive; all saying "let's get in there and get the job done." Simplistic? Perhaps, but the media used its considerable influence to create the sort of atmosphere that told not only Americans, but our enemy, that this entire country was solidly behind the defeat of the enemy. Today's media, on the other hand, is sending exactly the opposite message by presenting nothing but continuously bad news, adopting nothing but negative positions, and sometimes appearing to side more with the enemy than with our own troops. I can't help but believe that this thing could have been winding down by now if it weren't for the opposition by our country's own media, who somehow see their mission as journalists to be more important than our military mission as a country. This is another example where "freedom of the press," an integral part of our constitution, may end up being our undoing as a free nation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan The only thing you're leaving out though John, is that the media WAS 'imbedded' right from the start of this war. Remember the coverage aboard tanks rolling toward Baghdad? The coverage was very rah-rah, go get 'em. It was once WMDs weren't turning up that the media's coverage, in line with public opinion, began to shift. You have a president, house and senate all from the same party, all of whom could call a press conference at any time and recieve full media coverage to share the success stories in Iraq. The #1 cable news network leans conservative, the #1 talk radio host is conservative. If the success stories aren't getting out there, rather than blaming the liberal media, why not wonder what in the world the GOP is doing about getting out the positive word? It's always going to be the job of the press to question what the government is up to. As we have seen, when the government controls all the info, the whole story doesn't get told. But at the same time, if the GOP is standing around wringing its collectve hands because the 'liberal media' won't be just happy news, then they ought to ask themselves what they're doing to show the success stories.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy K2man, you know the old media is 90% liberal. You know they don't like the president or the war or any thing we do to fight terrorism. Their reporting has been so biased that they will never have credibility ever again. Ever. I could give you thousands of examples. The new media of Fox news and talk radio are the only thing that is keeping the old media in check. It's no accident that the new media like Fox news in #1. It's also no accident that the liberals continue to lose and are usually wrong. The media cost us Vietnam and they would cost us this war if they could. The NY Times after exposing yet more secrets to our enemy regardign the SWIFT program have jumped the shark and are forever discedited. Same goes for CNN.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Your post 47 was hit better than Wright's homer last night in the mid summer classic. Good job Beau and "Thank you God" for Bill and the boys and girls at FOX who are looking out for the folks.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Footnote Beau--I still don't think we can afford it and look forward to blossoming economic superpower India to NOW foot some of the bill and do some heavey lifting after yesterday's hit.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan So why isn't Fox spending lots of time reporting on all of the successes? If you watch it often, and I do, more and more of the conservatives there are of the opinion that the war was a mistake but we have to finish the job. (Not Hannity, of course -- he's in some other orbit.)
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <This is why history will be very kind to Bush as is is to Lincoln.> Maybe he'll even get his face put on a coin. The first Half Penny produced in America.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... and sometimes appearing to side more with the enemy than with our own troops. << "The Enemy" is ill-defined in this case, and not comparable to earlier wars. Even here on this thread we have people referring to 'iraqis' or 'muslims' as the enemy - sometimes it's just 'the middle east'. I wouldn't want to see the press doing any more rabble-rousing than they already do, because the yahoos must subject to it are the same people who think that we're at war with the iraqis or the muslims. They don't any more encouragement.
Originally Posted By gadzuux MOST subject ... don't NEED any more encouragement. Coffee first before posting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If the person you quoted Dabob doesn't bother telling us that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton and that something called 9-11 happened to the economy he is not going to be taken very serious.> Clinton's economy was in decline after historic highs, but we were not in recession until Bush took over. The fact is, sometimes tax cuts work as intended, sometimes they don't. Douglas and I went through this months ago, and the stats show this clearly; sometimes yes, sometimes no. The jury is still out on this one; very short term results look good (the last year or two), but that would overlook the short term declines after Bush's first tax cut. Besides, even with the seeming short-term gains, flurucz skewered them nicely in #40 (e.g. your commentator's breathless crediting of 5 million new jobs, not mentioning that that's pretty much "break even" at the current rate of immigration, not to mention how many of those jobs are low paying.) You really need to stop seeing things in black and white. And you really need to stop getting things off topic - this is supposed to be about our response to terrorism. And I really need to stop responding to your off-topic things like... well, um, like this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Back on topic, here's an assessment from a guy on the Newsday editorial board (both he and the editorial page in general supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, by the way). But now he thinks invading Iraq was not only botched, but counterproductive to our interests. <a href="http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/opinion/ny-opklu074808657jul07" target="_blank">http://www.newsday.com/news/pr intedition/opinion/ny-opklu074808657jul07</a>,0,4756704.column?coll=ny-opinion-print "t wasn't supposed to go like this. Beyond all the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a more traditional, realpolitik rationale for invading Iraq: It would be the mother of all demonstration projects." (snip) The Bush administration's solution was a preventive use of force - attacking before the worst-case scenario could occur. Experts were strongly divided on the wisdom of that tactic, especially in Iraq. It was, at best, a gamble. But look at the world this morning and you have to conclude the preventive ploy didn't work. All is not lost, yet, in Iraq, but a neutral observer would have to see that the demonstration project has been not only a dud but counterproductive. Just make a list of the rest of the world's hot spots: From the U.S. perspective, they are all going in the wrong direction. Afghanistan is considerably less stable now than it was a year ago. The Taliban is making a comeback, and the Afghan government supported by Washington is increasingly unpopular and in control of less and less of that country. Iran is undeterred in its effort to develop nuclear weapons. Somalia has been taken over by an Islamic fundamentalist regime that has the potential to be a haven for terrorists. The situation in the Middle East has significantly deteriorated with Israel on the verge of a full-scale invasion of the Gaza Strip it left a year ago and with a possible civil war between Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Organization. And now - most dangerous of all - North Korea, in defiance of world opinion, has tested a long-range missile that someday could carry the nuclear weapons it is continuing to develop." (snip) "Unless the administration can reverse some of these developments, the prospect is that President George W. Bush will hand to his successor a world in much worse shape than when he took over in 2001. And his administration is so preoccupied in Iraq that it doesn't have the resources or the time to devote full attention to all these other problems." This is just what some of us warned about. Toppling Saddam would be the easy part. After that Iraq, by the very nature of its make-up, would be less likely to become a shining example of democracy than a divided and divisive place that would prove extremely difficult to occupy, let alone control. It would eat up our military and financial resources (tieing our hands elsewhere), and in the end the best we could hope for would probably be either another strong man, or a country split into three after a long struggle (probably intensifying after we left) and thousands upon thousands of deaths. As for the initial question here - does America have "what it takes" to be brutal enough to put down the insurgency... I'm not sure the logic even follows in this case. If we were more brutal in trying to kill insurgents, and inevitably killed more civilians as well, it might impose a sort of brutal calm - or might just inflame the people of Iraq and the whole region. But even if it was the former, it seems to me that would be temporary and doesn't get to the root of the Shia/Sunni conflict, which precedes us and will be there long after we leave. We have to leave some time. When we do, are the Shia and Sunni going to say "well, we have to get along now, because the Americans killed so many of us." That doesn't follow. A brutal occupation could "keep the peace," perhaps, for as long as we stayed there. But everyone agrees that we don't want to stay there forever. So I'm not sure it's even the right question.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I still don't think we can afford it and look forward to blossoming economic superpower India<< I think that India has some distance to cover before it can be called an "economic super power". Its GDP is comparable to Mexico's and it has 10x Mexico's population. Time will tell if it can sustain its high growth rate and become the second China.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Back on topic, here's an assessment from a guy on the Newsday editorial board (both he and the editorial page in general supported the Iraq invasion in 2003, by the way). But now he thinks invading Iraq was not only botched, but counterproductive to our interests.>> Dabob, I jsut don't get you. What good does it do to talk about the invasion of Iraq and if it was a good idea? That is totally irrelevant at this point and we have all made our points. I think Iraq was the right war and having Saddam gone and Iraq as a friend isa good thing. The real issue is how to win and how to change the middle east now that we are there. Any ideas for this since this is the reality we face? Democrats are going to lose becasuse they refuse to live in the present and they refuse to present any ideas on how to WIN. SAying Bush is a moron might be fun for some people but it will never get them votes. You and STPH make my point.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 It's not saying Bush was a moron, it's questioning the very ideology that got us in (what most people see as) this mess to begin with. Do you want to vote for more of the same type of ideology, or do you not? That's a legitimate question, but it interesting that you now seem so uncomfortable with the idea of asking if it was a good idea or not. Besides, the point of the piece I posted was that going into Iraq was not only a bad idea, it has lead to the situations we face other places NOW.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << That's a legitimate question, but it interesting that you now seem so uncomfortable with the idea of asking if it was a good idea or not. >> Im not uncomfortable at all. I know removing Saddam and his sons was the right thing to do. I just get tired of talking about something that has no effect on the future of Iraq. But yes, we need to decide if we want to cut, run and appease or fight these scumbags and keep them on the run. Vote democrat if you want to let the terrorists win. It's that simple because the democrats NEVER tell us how they would win and keep us safe from the terrorists who are killing people all over the planet. That fact is not going away Dabob and will keep the dems out of power for generations.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Vote democrat if you want to let the terrorists win. It's that simple because the democrats NEVER tell us how they would win and keep us safe from the terrorists who are killing people all over the planet. << It's only "that simple" to people who see things simplistically. You complain that the dems never tell us how they would "win and keep us safe". Well we've seen how the republicans do it - they attack a nation that was wholly unrelated to the people who attacked us. So how is that "keeping us safe from the terrorists killing people all over the planet"? Obviously it isn't doing a thing about that. Bombings and attacks have continued unabated all over the globe, and fighting iraqi insurgents isn't going to change any of it. It's an ineffective strategy that's making the situation worse, not better. >> What good does it do to talk about the invasion of Iraq and if it was a good idea? << I'm amazed at this sentiment every time I see it. We have committed our military and our honor on a war that was based on falsehoods - and we're still there. People are dying - over fifty of them just yesterday, and over a hundred of them over the past few days. It's not getting better, it's deteriorating. And you expect us to just forget about how we got here in the first place? Not likely.
