There are a few problems here... Okay, let's go...
It's much easier to spill the blood of other actual warriors in the name of personal glory. I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's quote: "Speak softly and carry a big stick"; Not the recklessness we witnessed in both Afghanistan and Iraq in order to smash the "Paper Tiger" caricature. Moreover, to what noble end did our warriors fight, bleed, and die? Our primary objectives changed almost immediately.
Okay, I don't necessarily disagree with your questions. I detect that we see it differently, but I don't think you're way off base with your emphasis. We shouldn't send our troops off to die or be injuried needlessly. We shouldn't be reckless when we send our troops into harms way. I'm not convinced Hussein was a paper tiger. I do think he had needed to go for over a decade. His day finally came. Our primary objectives did change. I doubt these are the first wars where they did. What were our initial objectives in WWI and WWII? As a matter of fact, it was to stay out of them. That didn't work.
I would submit today, we don't avoid wars we think are going to have to be fought eventually anyway. What should the response to 09/11/2001 have been?
Should we have blustered and backed off? Did that work in the acts of terrorism perpetrated under Clinton? Did the fact that were weren't conducting hostile actions in 2001, spare us attack by terrorists? No. It seems to me we were obligated to respond.
Some folks think we should have gone after a different nation, because it's nationals played more heavily in the terrorism on our soil. That's a rather rational observation, but I think there is a case to be made for not hitting that nation hard too. Is there more to be gained by going after two other known terrorist groups, and allowing the leadership of the other nation to take care of it's own? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I remain unconvinced that removal of that nation's leadership would have created a more stable reliable Middle-East partner in the aftermath of such an eventuality.
I personally thought going after Hussein, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban was the way to go. My only problem with going after the Taliban, was that Obama inherited the operation and immediately sought to undercut our ability to win there.
Hussein had been blustering, breaking no-fly zones, and offering rewards to terrorists. He bragged about being an enemy of the U. S. Prior to the war, nobody believed Husseing didn't have WMDs. Even the U. N. was certain he did, because he wouldn't cooperate with their inspectors. That's a pretty big admission for them.
What were the facts? Our nation was not attacked by either sovereign nation on 9/11, yet the Bush-Cheney Axis first blamed and attacked a backwards Afghanistan for OBL, and then by inference, Iraq.
Well, it seems to me Osam Bin Laden's network was integral to the Afghanistan region. I'm not sure why you seem to disagree. I believe he moved back and forth from Afghanistan to Pakistan when he desired to. He was probably holed up in Pakistan for years, but I don't think that was his only field of operation.
Did the U. S. actually attack Afghanistan? Didn't we attack terrorist operations inside Afghanistan? I may be wrong on this. If so, set me straight. At some point the leadership changed, at least I believe it did. Were we involved in that, or am I confusing the Pakistan leadership's change? Bush/Cheney Axis? :^)
Based on the initial information the American public was led to believe, the apprehension of OBL and to "punish" Afghanistan was Mission #1, and elimination of imminent threat of WMD in Iraq was Mission #2. If took six months for GW Bush to tire of searching for OBL, while "WMD" quickly and seamlessly became "Nation Building." Frankly, in neither case was a prolonged Ground War warranted. We were waging unnecessary wars for unwinnable reasons. You and others may well oppose what now appears to have been a waste of sweat, blood, and life -- a dog-fight all for naught; The embarrassing thing is that this would be true in any case -- regardless of whether Bush were still President, or the current Marxist traitor.
I believe the initial goal was to deal with Laden and take out terrorist training camps in Afghanistan. As Laden proved to be more elusive, the U. S. de-emphasized Laden. It was a means of eliminating the down-side of not capturing him as soon as we would have liked. I don't think Bush tired of looking for him. I believe he had his men in the background turning over every rock they could to find him. Any comments by Bush to the contrary, I dismiss out of hand. The was pure propaganda IMO.
As a strategist, do you honestly think we should have left Hussein in power, or simply left after taking him out so the vaccum left would be filled by what could become the strongest enemy of our nation? I think we handled it about right, except for the delay in implementing the right policies. That took way too long. I do give Bush credit for shaking up operations and getting things on track. I criticize Bush plenty around these parts, so I'm not going to carry water for him if I think he's wrong. With regard to these war efforts, I support him.
As for your comment that this couldn't have been run better by Bush over Obama, look what happened in Iraq vs Afghanistan. Iraq isn't perfect, but it's a damn site better than it was under Hussein. We have decent relations there. We had none before the war. There is a modicum of stability.
As to 0bama's push to feminize and hog-tie the military with absurd suicidal RoE policies, it is of course true; But I'm afraid the seeds of these same policies had begun under GW Bush. That said, of course 0bama's goal is and has always been to embarrass America. We have embarrassed ourselves by allowing him to become President, then re-elected.
I am much more comfortable with this version of what has taken place than the one you made just prior above.
(2) I have mixed thoughts on the Military Industrial Complex. Our suppliers make lots of money. They don't always do the best job, or provide the best tools for your men. We do ne ed them. I think they could be managed better. There are going to be advocates on their behalf....Cheney made a lot of money working for Haliburton. I believe it was in the neighborhood of $20 million per year. On the one hand we want capable people in the White House, and on the other we get upset if they make too much money because they are so qualified. I happen to think Cheney had the most gravitas of any vice president we've ever had...
"Gravitas," yes. Arrogance? Yes. Respect for the Constitution, life, and fighting a righteous war out of genuine security and concern for America? No.
I disagree with that. I am not of a mind to allow an attack on the U. S. like 09/11/01, and not take strong decisive action. It's simply impossible to claim that there was no terrorist presence in Iraq. We spent the better part of three years taking out terrorists. Many came from outside the nation, but many came from inside it too. In time things leveled out, and a semblence of peaceful routine came out of it. Even if you wish to make the claim that peace didn't come out of it, we were able to eliminate tens of thousands of hot-head terrorist types along the way. It was like drawing bugs to a light on a warm summer evening. And when they came out, we zapped them. All good.I'm not going to make the case that everyone who re-upped in Iraq wanted to do so. Over and over and over again I see men who were darned proud of their efforts and achievements in Iraq. IMO< That really isn't reflected in your comments that take Bush/Cheney to task for putting our men in harms way. These guys thought we were making headway. They didn't want to leave before the job was done. By the end in Iraq, they thought their job pretty much was done. That's good enough for me.
Moreover, I'd rather MY son not be used as a pawn for keeping the military sharp just because he volunteered to "keep America safe." Btw, do you remember seeing those shrink-wrapped palettes of cash just sitting around in Iraq? Inevitably, Iraq soon became an expensive sloppy op with a muddled objective. I had a major problem with a sitting VP profiteering on this war. That is a direct conflict of interest. Had it been Biden instead of Cheney on the board of a defense contractor, how would you feel? I can tell you I'd be outraged.
To some extent every kid in the service has been involved in some operations that are dangerous, but may not be expressly keeping our nation safe. It's a periferal operation, and sometimes kids get killed. That doesn't mean it wasn't in protection of our nation overall. You shouldn't look at it as if your kid is being exposed to danger for no good reason.
Extending our presence "over there" is a valid exercise. Our men that served in Germany, South Korea, and other places weren't necessarily protecting the United States at the time, but they were serving the interests of our nation by discouraging conflicts from starting that could have flared into new regional or global conflicts.
Cheney was given a $33.7 million dollar package when he quit to run with Bush on the Republican ticket. Cheney sold $30 million of that stock because a stink came of it.There's something going on here that bothers me. When Biden dumps on the military and our corporate agents involved in our war opperations we get pissed off because we don't think he understands what's at stake, or even the players involved. Along come someone on our own team that does, and guess what, that's a crime too. It's borders the absurd the dislike of Cheney.
I can understand the Left coming down on this like they do, but our side? Sorry, but there are some guys on the right who have bought off lock stock and barrel on the Leftist dogma regarding Cheney. I'm not going to do it.
(3)Cheney hasn't just started doing things I haven't liked. I thought the idea to allow Islamic Clerics to officiate at the 09/11 memorials was absolutely unforgivable...Somewhere along the line, these clueless bastard missed the part about terrorism, and sensitivity to families. They also got so confused, they thought decent hard working U. S. Citizens (grandmas included) were the ones who needed to be rousted at the airports.
Yes, sure, Cheney played into the open border situation too. It's devistating what has happened to our nation at the hands of the Left in both parties.
Isn't that just it? The Devil is in the details with Cheney.
I agree with that. There's no gray area here. Our laws should have been enforced, and the Bush/Cheney administration didn't follow their Constitutional Oath.
(4)Part of the Patriot Act is being gamed against us. They ramroded through new super-powers, and those powers are being used on citizens, NOT TERRORISTS. It's infuriating. We shouldn't have to wonder who is listening in on our converstations. They can put saran wrap on it and call it anything they want, it's still a s--t sandwich for U. S. Citizens.
I'm not so sure all of the past several years of obtrusiveness in the name of "liberty and security" hasn't been by design. Afterall, the Patriot Act was written while Bubba Klinton was still President. And IF that is the case, Bush and Cheney bear some responsibility. As Ricky used to say to Lucy," You've got some 'splain' to do!" Except all we've heard from either is SUPPORT of 0bama's NSA.
I agree with that. I don't think the Patriot Act was a good idea. I don't like what is going on in our airports. IMO, we should cut back almost all of that. Profile people, do whatever you have to do. Get folks who are threats out of this nation. Then let our citizens go about their business without the East German tactics. Bush and Cheney played into the hands of civil rights abridgers IMO.
(5) I'm not a big fan of the CFR, but I don't get as worked up over them as others do. It used to be folks were really upset that Kissinger was a puppet of the "Blank" family. (insert family name here, I'm drawing a blank at the moment)....
Kissinger IS a puppet :-) The problem with the CFR: Its goal and mission is clearly NOT in the best interest of nationalism and US Sovereignty, but in the interest of global interests. It runs anathema to US interests. Thus when you add up the ledger, it place both Cheney and the CFR in the red -- Trojan Horse enemies of America, US sovereignty, AND the Constitution. Meanwhile, 0bama represents the other side of the same Statist mask that hopes to bury the USA.
I'm not sure I'd term it Obama on the other side of the same statist mask hoping to take the U. S. down. That guy wants an Islamic run United States. As bad as I think the globalists are, I think an Islamic state is worse.
I think you have grounds to give me some grief over my response in this area. I am extremely anti-globalist, and it's fair to point out that the CFR, Bilderbergers and others are certainly globalist concerns. So I shouldn't have said I am not as concerned with these entities as I used to be.
I don't think that is an accurate portrayal of my innermost thoughts on them, and I shouldn't have said that.
Nationalism can be good. If we return to our values as a nation, our nation is the solid rock the world relies on. That cannot happen under globalism. So I shun globalism and cling to loyalty to the United States. I will oppose a North American Union with my dying breath.
Thanks for the comments.