Bush Has It All Under Control

  • Thread starter Thread starter YesORno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m satisfied that Bush has it under control — I’m not so sure about the initial poster however. :cool:
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
I’m satisfied that Bush has it under control — I’m not so sure about the initial poster however. :cool:
:rotfl:

good one
 
40.png
HagiaSophia:
I’m satisfied that Bush has it under control — I’m not so sure about the initial poster however. :cool:
Bush does indeed have it under control. I am so sick and tired of people questioning how this war is being fought. It’s time for people to sit down, shut up and trust the President. He knows what he’s doing. I’m sick of people focusing on all the bad things like the killings and bombings in Iraq. What—would you rather have those people tortured by Saddam Hussein? I’m sick of all the Saddam lovers out there saying bad things about this war. I even heard someone say the other day that the only reason Bush got us into war was so he could get re-elected. Even if that were true, so what?! Is it so bad that it took a war for us to keep a great Christian pro-life President?

I wish the traitors in this country would shut up.
 
Oh. My. God. Did you really just write this?
I even heard someone say the other day that the only reason Bush got us into war was so he could get re-elected. Even if that were true, so what?!
Nice catholic sentiment, that.
Is it so bad that it took a war for us to keep a great Christian pro-life President?
  1. Pro-life? Only when it suits him it seems.
In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a young woman (then 15!) named Robin Lowman. Miss Lowman became pregnant by Bush and he arranged for her to have an abortion - which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very very illegal!!!
  1. 12,896 Americans wounded, 1,902 Ameicans dead.
We’re supposed to sanction peace, not war.

Stephen
 
40.png
PiusXIII:
Bush does indeed have it under control. I am so sick and tired of people questioning how this war is being fought. It’s time for people to sit down, shut up and trust the President. He knows what he’s doing. I’m sick of people focusing on all the bad things like the killings and bombings in Iraq. What—would you rather have those people tortured by Saddam Hussein? I’m sick of all the Saddam lovers out there saying bad things about this war. I even heard someone say the other day that the only reason Bush got us into war was so he could get re-elected. Even if that were true, so what?! Is it so bad that it took a war for us to keep a great Christian pro-life President?

I wish the traitors in this country would shut up.
I must assume that your post is written tongue in cheek because, after reading it twice, the irony shines through.

It’s perfectly clear that our government is being run by liars and deceivers. They and the people who willfully enable them bear responsibility for the deaths and the suffering that has occured.

I wish the traitors in this country weren’t the ones running it.
 
  • *In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a young woman (then 15!) named Robin Lowman. Miss Lowman became pregnant by Bush and he arranged for her to have an abortion - which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very very illegal!!! *
I want this proof as this is the first time I have heard of this!
  • "I even heard someone say the other day that the only reason Bush got us into war was so he could get re-elected. Even if that were true, so what?! "
I have a real hard time believing this. The president almost lost the election because of the War. BY the time the election came out it was over a year after the start of the war. After awhile peoples views start to wan. It would have been smarter from him to wait awhile and then go to war so that it would over power his oppositions views. Think about it…TV coverage would have been all about the president taking charge and hours of war footage. Great PR at the beginning but not in the middle because people start to get dissatisfied that results don’t happen fast and news coverage starts to die down. The problem at hand is from the information he had he thought IRAQ was a threat that couldn’t wait. He did what the American people asked him to do…To take charge and make sure we are safe. We now know information was flawed but that doesn’t change the original decision. He is serving and protecting us. You may not agree with him but give him credit for standing up for what he believes. Bush haters are so focused on this war that the forget everything that led up to it…the years of appeasement by the international community, the genocide of the Kurds, the murders of the opposition, the raping and torturing of people, suppressing of freedom…We as people of the international community should have forced our governments to actually take a stand years ago…That failure has led us to where we are now…

I personal think it is better to pray for peace instead of screaming and holding onto resentment.

God Bless,

Beckers
 
It is easy to believe from the press reports that there is nothing going on in Iraq except Americans arriving after the fact to clean up the aftermath of yet another bombing. This is a distortion brought on by the bias of the “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality common to journalists of all stripes. Believe it or not, America has a strategy for dealing with the mayhem, and it IS working. I refer to the following article in the New York Post:

ROLLIN’ ON THE RIVERS

By MACKUBIN T. OWENS
June 15, 2005 – MAY was a costly month in Iraq: 700 Iraqis and some 80 Americans died, making it one of the bloodiest months of the war. While bombings in Baghdad decreased over the last two weeks as the result of a major sweep by some 40,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen, backed up by 10,000 troops (Operation Lightning/Operation Thunder), insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians and police have resumed.

The continuing attacks have generated the usual sort of stories in the U.S. press: America is mired in a Vietnam-style quagmire. Thus a recent Boston Globe report began by claiming: “Military operations in Iraq have not succeeded in weakening the insurgency.”

But the Globe is wrong. Coalition operations in Iraq have killed hundreds of insurgents and led to the capture of many hundreds more, including two dozen of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s top lieutenants. Intelligence from captured insurgents, as well as from Zarqawi’s computer, has had a cascading effect, permitting the Coalition to maintain pressure on the insurgency.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent claim that the insurgency was in its “last throes,” however, was clearly an overstatement. But while the outcome in Iraq is far from certain — and even a favorable one won’t come overnight — evidence suggests the United States and the new Iraqi government are on the right track to ultimate success. To understand why, it is necessary to grasp the essentials of the current U.S. strategy in Iraq and how it seems to be playing out.

The Globe’s problem, one shared by most of the American press, is the tendency to see events in Iraq as isolated. They fail to see the overall campaign: a series of coordinated events — movements, battles and supporting operations — designed to achieve strategic or operational objectives within a military theater.

No force, conventional or guerrilla, can continue to fight if it is deprived of sanctuary and logistics support. Accordingly, the central goal of the U.S. strategy in Iraq is to destroy the insurgency by depriving it of its base in the Sunni Triangle and its “ratlines” — the infiltration routes that run from the Syrian border into the heart of Iraq. One ratline follows the Euphrates River corridor — running from Syria to Husayba on the Syrian border and then through Qaim, Rawa, Haditha, Asad, Hit and Fallujah to Baghdad. The other follows the course of the Tigris — from the north through Mosul-Tel Afar to Tikrit and on to Baghdad. These two “river corridors” constitute the main spatial elements of a campaign to implement U.S. strategy.
(cont’d)
 
(cont’d)
This campaign began last November with the takedown of Fallujah.

Wresting Fallujah from the rebels was critically important: Control of the town had given them the infrastructure — human and physical — necessary to maintain a high tempo of attacks against the Iraqi government and coalition forces.

In and of itself, the loss of Fallujah didn’t cause the insurgency to collapse, but it did deprive the rebels of an indispensable sanctuary. Absent such a sanctuary, large terrorist networks cannot easily survive, being reduced to small, hunted bands.

With Fallujah captured, the Coalition continued a high tempo of offensive operations. After losing the city, Zarqawi apparently tried to reconstitute the insurgency in Mosul, but was unable to do so because of continued U.S. pressure. In Mosul as in Fallujah, Coalition forces killed and captured insurgents — forcing Zarqawi to move west into Al Anbar province. In March, an Iraqi special operations unit captured an insurgent camp near Lake Tharthar on the border of Anbar and Salaheddin provinces. Such operations forced him back to positions along the Syrian border.

Next came the rivers campaign — to destroy the insurgent infrastructure west and northwest of Fallujah, and so shut down those “ratlines” — which continues apace.

May saw four operations within that campaign:
  • The first, Operation Matador, was a week-long Marine action centered on Qaim, near the Syrian border. Matador sought to kill and capture followers of Zarqawi known to be located there and to interdict the smuggling routes they used to move downriver to Baghdad. Some 125 insurgents died in the fighting.
  • Next came Operation New Market, another Marine operation, in the Haditha area southeast of Qaim. Here, a major highway from Syria crosses the Euphrates and then branches north toward Mosul and southeast toward Fallujah and Baghdad. While the insurgents did not stand and fight as they had in Qaim, the operation still netted substantial intelligence.
  • The third was a joint U.S.-Iraqi operation in the Mosul-Tel Afar region that contains the Tigris River ratline.
  • The fourth operation of this campaign was the aforementioned Lightning/Thunder in Baghdad itself, which led to the capture of a former general in Saddam’s intelligence service, who (according to the U.S. military) led “the military wings of several terror cells” operating in west Baghdad. Hundreds of other insurgents were captured as well.
The rapid tempo of Coalition operations will likely continue. Indeed, as U.S. and Iraqi forces shut down these ratlines, the insurgency will likely fall back on its “strategic rear” in Syria. Thus, “hot pursuit” into Syria may soon become an issue.

The U.S. strategy in Iraq is limited by a number of factors: the U.S. forces available, Iraqi politics and the time it is taking to create a competent Iraqi military. But the ongoing river campaign indicates that America has chosen to go on the offensive, taking advantage of the success in Fallujah to deny the insurgents respite. The high operational tempo is intended to rapidly degrade the rebels’ lines of communication at both ends of the two river corridors, while killing and capturing as many of the enemy as possible.

But while military operations have weakened the insurgency, military means alone cannot de**feat an insurgency. That is why it is necessary to bring the Sunnis into the government. Recent evidence suggests that the steps so far have already begun to drive a wedge between the Sunni and the foreign jihadis who have come to fight for Zarqawi.

Indeed, one of the reasons U.S. forces have been able to go on the offensive — despite the fact that U.S. troop strength is actually lower than it was earlier this year — is an improvement in actionable intelligence. Some of this is coming from captured insurgents. But much of it is coming from Sunnis who realize that their best chance for a future requires them to choose the new Iraqi government and reject the jihadis. If current trends can be sustained, Zarqawi and his jihadi murderers will soon run out of time and space.

Mackubin Thomas Owens is a professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I
 
I’m much more comfortable with a President trying to do something than with a politician like Bill Clinton that repeatedly did nothing.
 
If you look at history at previous examples of counter-rebellion/counter-insurgency efforts, you will find that successful results were gained when the force attempting to exert control won the “hearts and minds” of the native populace, to use a hackneyed phrase. I’ll give you an example from American history - The American Revolution.

In 1780, General Cornwallis was sitting in Charleston SC with the intent of pacifying the southern colonies. Opposing him is General Nathaniel Greene who has an inferior force with inferior equipment and training. Gen. Greene has the classic military understanding that generals fight to win campaigns, not battles. He also understands that the populace is fairly evenly divided between loyalists and patriots. To win the “Hearts and Minds” battle, he arranges for the British rule to be so noxious as to make Patriot rule seem preferable. How does he do this? By leading the British on a 6-month goose chase in the interior of the Carolinas and Virginia away from Cornwallis’s supply line, forcing Cornwallis to pillage the countryside for supplies. Greene loses every battle and is in constant retreat, but the populace is enraged by the plunder by the British troops and turns irrevocably against them.

Now, how does that relate to Iraq? Let us compare what each side is doing in the “Hearts and Minds” campaign.

The U.S. overthrew a noxious bloodthirsty dictator. It ran a relatively clean election, giving the Iraqis their first ever freely elected government. It has spent billions rehabbing the infrastructure that was seriously decrepit even before the war. The Iraqis have all kinds of freedoms that would have been unimaginable before the war. The U.S. has the general support of the Shiites and Kurds who collectively represent 80% of the population. The Sunni leaders are coming to the bargaining table to be part of the new government. The pace of Zarqawi accomplices being picked up has increased dramatically. This can only mean one thing - the intelligence gathered is getting better and that the Iraqis are getting tired of the insurgency.

What is the insurgency doing? It has generally switched to car bombs as a preferred mode of attack as too many of the roadside IED’s are being disabled before detonation or are jammed by electronic jammming equipment aboard U.S. convoys. They offer no constructive program for running the country and hold sway over the areas they do only by means of terrorizing the population. After the battle for Fallujah, the Americans received all kinds of thanks from the locals who were afraid for their lives because of the rule of the terrorists there. Paradoxically, the more photogenic bombing the insurgents do to the Iraqi populace, the more the populace turns against them. It is counter-productive for them to bomb if they want to win the “Hearts and Minds”. The most popular show on TV in Iraq right now is one that airs police confession tapes of captured insurgents being humiliated.

What one must understand is that the bombing in Iraq is not directed primarily at the populace there, it is being aimed at the populace HERE in the U.S. The ultimate goal is to make Iraq costly enough and bloody enough that the U.S. will withdraw prematurely and allow the jihadists to take control. The media is only too willing to be unwitting acomplices to this strategy. By the postings of some of the posters here, it appears to have worked among those already predisposed to hating GWB.

As for those who complain about Iraqi civilian casualties, one needs to take into account what the casualty rate would have been with an intact Hussein regime and sanctions still in place. Given the size of the mass graves that have been found, I don’t think it would necessarily have been less.
 
40.png
INRI:
If you look at history at previous examples of counter-rebellion/counter-insurgency efforts…etc.
Nice perspective.

It’s sad that those who do not like the President are so controlled by their hate of him that they have put themselves into a position where they would rather criticize the war effort in such a irresponsible way (to the detriment of the country) because in some convoluted logic they seem to think failure on the war front hurts the President. Failure in this war hurts all of us. Success in fighting it will be tasted worldwide.

We are doing good things in Iraq as the above post highlights… Things that are either not being reported or when in the headlines are conveniently disregarded because it doesn’t fit the existing paridigm of those who were against the war to begin. At some point its time to stop your whining, exaggerated claims of wrongdoing and hate-filled smug remarks (which is completely different than well-intentioned criticism which there seems to be a dearth) . President Bush has it under control with a plan that is being executed superbly by YOUR military.
 
40.png
beckers:
  • *In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a young woman (then 15!) named Robin Lowman. Miss Lowman became pregnant by Bush and he arranged for her to have an abortion - which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very very illegal!!! *
I want this proof as this is the first time I have heard of this!
  • "I even heard someone say the other day that the only reason Bush got us into war was so he could get re-elected. Even if that were true, so what?! "
I have a real hard time believing this. The president almost lost the election because of the War. BY the time the election came out it was over a year after the start of the war. After awhile peoples views start to wan. It would have been smarter from him to wait awhile and then go to war so that it would over power his oppositions views. Think about it…TV coverage would have been all about the president taking charge and hours of war footage. Great PR at the beginning but not in the middle because people start to get dissatisfied that results don’t happen fast and news coverage starts to die down. The problem at hand is from the information he had he thought IRAQ was a threat that couldn’t wait. He did what the American people asked him to do…To take charge and make sure we are safe. We now know information was flawed but that doesn’t change the original decision. He is serving and protecting us. You may not agree with him but give him credit for standing up for what he believes. Bush haters are so focused on this war that the forget everything that led up to it…the years of appeasement by the international community, the genocide of the Kurds, the murders of the opposition, the raping and torturing of people, suppressing of freedom…We as people of the international community should have forced our governments to actually take a stand years ago…That failure has led us to where we are now…

I personal think it is better to pray for peace instead of screaming and holding onto resentment.

God Bless,

Beckers
There is no proof of the abortion story. Someone selling a book claimed an anonymous source provided the info. So noone on the record is making this claim, and someone selling a book is claiming an anonymous source. Sorry, that’s not proof, but slander. It reminds me of people who claimed Clinton was a murderer.

On the war part, one wonders if these people would have been around in WWII, what they would have said in 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge.

War is not pretty folks. While I do agree that Islamic fanatics are flocking to Iraq, I much prefer that to them flocking here. Does anybody really think that Al-Zarqawi and his ilk would be sitting quietly in their Mosque if we didn’t invade Iraq?
 
40.png
qmvsimp:
War is not pretty folks. While I do agree that Islamic fanatics are flocking to Iraq, I much prefer that to them flocking here. Does anybody really think that Al-Zarqawi and his ilk would be sitting quietly in their Mosque if we didn’t invade Iraq?
In a recent story in the Washington Post, they interviewed some guy in Syria named Abu Ibrahim who is a smuggles jihadists into Iraq. He mentioned that he crossed into Iraq with 50 fighters back in the summer of 2004. Currently, only 3 are still living and one of those is a suicide bomber. These guys are all coming out of the woodwork, but they don’t stick around too long…

Full story here:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/07/AR2005060702026.html
 
“When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society,” John Paul II said. “Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.”

'Nuff said.
 
slewi said:
“When war, as in these days in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is ever more urgent to proclaim, with a strong and decisive voice, that only peace is the road to follow to construct a more just and united society,” John Paul II said. “Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.”

'Nuff said.

I think the fate of humanity rests on defeating Jihadists that think killing non-muslims will send them to heaven.

Let’s use your theory on your home and family. If you had the means to defend your home and family, would you use it if someone attacked you or would you allow them to burn your house down and slaughter your family because “violence and arms can never resolve the problems of man.” ?

The specific case in Iraq is more like this:

Your neighbor on the next street hates you. He has told you so many times. He teaches his children and others around him that you are Satan. That killing you and your family is God’s will. That killing you and your family in a suicide attack will send them to heaven, where 72 virgins will await them.

Then they acquire arms through illegal means. They train in how to attack and kill you. You find out about it. Do you really just do nothing? Do you really wait until they attack you?

I think the answer is obvious.
 
There can be no true peace without justice. Peace is not just simply the absence of war, but the absence of injustice.

If you look at history, you’ll often find examples of powerful countries invading less powerful countries. To take recent examples, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Syria and Egypt invaded Israel, Germany invaded …everybody, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and North Korea invaded South Korea. Now say those countries completed their conquests and the invaded country was now incorporated in the invader country. We now have peace! Or do we? Poland in 1940 by slewi’s definition is a peaceful place. But there is no justice.

With all due respect to our deceased Holy Father, war has solved a lot of problems of man. Is it the ultimate solution? No. But until we start minting people without sin, it is going to be a feature of our world.
 
r

YesORno said:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050614/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=AtSQGtfTanSsSjh.R7FFm.Gs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2MTQ3MTFjBHNlYwN0cw–
KIRKUK, Iraq - Suicide bombers killed 28 people in northern
Iraq Tuesday, including 23 slain in a single attack outside a bank on a crowded street in this ethnically mixed northern city that has become a flash point for sectarian tension.

Your poll question is absolutely preposterous. How can anyone, regardless of who they are have everything totally under control when it comes to terrorist who think nothing of slaughtering women, children, and their own people! However, I can say that Bush has it more under control than if we had a weaker president who was not interested in doing the right thing. Thanks to Bush many would be American terrorists have been halted and hamperred. Thanks to Bush, the Iraq people have a safer and healthier environment to live in. Thanks to Bush, we have put down an evil regime and crushed a terrorists stronghold with FEW CASUALTIES ( when one looks at Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI)!

Bush is not perfect, are you?


LIVE CHRIST!
Bob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top