Bush is a ____!

[Jarhead]

I came across this article and it espouses my beliefs completely. Please read it.
www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2111&go=4


Disclaimer: I am a conservative, self sufficient, inactive Marine...yet horribly disappointed in my talking head government officials.
Bush is a coward. He started a fight with the fists of others, and won't allow them to finish it.
We use to call this type of person a bitch in the Marine Corps...guess I've never met a president though?
What a heartbreaking dissapointment.

[beardman2]

He started a fight with the fists of others,...

Maybe you can explain what you mean but isn't that what a president does? It's been a loooong time since one lead troops into battle.

...and won't allow them to finish it.

In your opinion what isn't allowing our troops to do?

[Powerman]

Wow, that was a long rant. This might not be a good way to start off here at XD, but what the hell.

I have bashed Bush for some time now, but I do not understand this one. There has been discussion I have seen lately with rants about how our leaders are not letting the troops fight and win. I don't get it.

Bush declared war on Heussin and Osama, not Iraq and Afghanistan
We are not there to slaughter civillians. Since when is it OK to shoot before you have ID'ed your target?
This is not Viet Nam in the same sense. Then we were fighting the N.V. ARMY from North Viet Nam backed by Russia.

I don't understand all the claims of hands tied behind backs. What would your plan be to win a war with no fronts, no declared millitary, and no millitary or infrastructure targets? The enemy hides among the civillians and they are unable, or unwilling to change that.
I would like to know how this war is supposed to be won.

[Krackels]

I agree and I disagree with your article.

I guess my largest complaint is that you criticize the Republicans and the Democrats and seem to lead the readers on to believe that there's some grand solution that will solve all of the problems and then you reveal that it's just 'turning the military loose' to do their job unhindered by the current ROE and, for lack of better words, politics.

"Turning the military loose" may work well when you're involved in a purely offensive war, but when public relations and defense is the most important thing you can't just have troops shooting every armed person they see.

[Jarhead]

[quote=beardman2]Maybe you can explain what you mean but isn't that what a president does? It's been a loooong time since one lead troops into battle.

He remains unaffected by his poor decisions. He won't even willingly accept political fallout for his decisions. ie: Invasion of Fallujah, April, THREE YEARS ago...too many civilian casualties, white house orders the cessation of the invasion. Fallujah has caused more casualties than any other city since then. The proper way to execute this invasion was obvious, but Bush would have been "jumped" for doing it, and that would be a bad political decision.

You asked, "In your opinion, what isn't he allowing our troops to do?"

It's not my opinion, it's reality. The rules of engagement have absolutely changed as the war has "progressed." Firing on a "perceived threat" has been disallowed. A truck that won't stop steaming toward your convoy must now be given the benefit of the doubt, right until it detonates. In my opinion it should be destroyed. I have two close friends over there for the second time, and this time they're worried.
There is a Marine on trial (held in CA currently) for "shooting a man in the back." It is undisputed that "his victim" had shot toward the Marine's fire team and was carrying an AK-47 when he was killed as he fled. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have a change of heart if he got away, he would have tried to kill more of our brothers asap. WTF...a Marine's on trial for this?

Krackels, I don't see any solution, easy or hard, that's not my assertion. I'm just dumbfounded by our elected idiots. How long do we want to spend our lives and billions on these vermon? I see Americans pumping billions of our taxpayer dollars, and willingly sending our troops into (for example) Sadre City. It's received with a resounding F$%* You! They take the money, kill our boys, burn our flag and denounce our presence. How the hell is it that we're supporting that?
I support the mission. I suspect that if I was alive, I would have supported WW2, as almost all Americans did. I also suspect that when 135,000 people were killed in our two day assault on Dresdon, Germany; Americans wept for the innocent. We knew then that if a war was worth fighting, it must be faught hard, and our victory was paramount.

What is victory? When the enemy stops swinging back and walks away defeated, even for a while.
Winning hearts and minds hasn't, and never will work. Our military is not a peace keeping force. That should be left to the UN or the French. Our military should make a terrifying adversary. This is no longer the case, as they are subdued. Everyone is worried about our reputation; I guess I am too, for different reasons.

FIGHT OR FLEE!

[Jarhead]

[quote=Powerman]Wow, that was a long rant. This might not be a good way to start off here at XD, but what the hell.

I have bashed Bush for some time now, but I do not understand this one. There has been discussion I have seen lately with rants about how our leaders are not letting the troops fight and win. I don't get it.

1"Bush declared war on Heussin and Osama, not Iraq and Afghanistan"
War is not declared on Saddam or Osama chief. Nor was it declared on Hitler.
2 "We are not there to slaughter civillians. Since when is it OK to shoot before you have ID'ed your target?"
What in He11 are you talking about?
3 "This is not Viet Nam in the same sense. Then we were fighting the N.V. ARMY from North Viet Nam backed by Russia."
We were fighting guerillas then as we are now. Now they're backed by Iran and a handful of other middle eastern countries. As well as France, our media, etc...

4 "I don't understand all the claims of hands tied behind backs. What would your plan be to win a war with no fronts, no declared millitary, and no millitary or infrastructure targets? The enemy hides among the civillians and they are unable, or unwilling to change that.
I would like to know how this war is supposed to be won."

I suspect you are a young, well intentioned person that tries to stay current on the news. Study world history, then read Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent." You will learn about the railroad you seem to be riding.
Then do a spell check before you post.

[Old School]

In order to have victory, one must first define it. This is my issue with how this White House is dealing with Iraq. Define the objective, meet the objective and get out.

If Bush would have stated that our objectives were to confirm that WMDs did not exist and that we need to remove SH from power in order to keep the peace, we would be out of there. The issue we have now is that the White House has not defined and end game and because of this, the Liberals are beating the same tune day after day.

Victory in Iraq is the day when the last US fighting man or woman leaves. I fear that will be many years from now, since no President will define victory during a struggle. You define the objective on the onset of the battle.

I too am a Conservative and I support this war. Each passing day it gets harder because I have yet heard the President define victory. If we are in Iraq to suck all of the terrorists into one area, that is fine, but that is not victory.

OS

[Jarhead]

Originally Posted by Old School

In order to have victory, one must first define it. This is my issue with how this White House is dealing with Iraq. Define the objective, meet the objective and get out.

If Bush would have stated that our objectives were to confirm that WMDs did not exist and that we need to remove SH from power in order to keep the peace, we would be out of there. The issue we have now is that the White House has not defined and end game and because of this, the Liberals are beating the same tune day after day.

Victory in Iraq is the day when the last US fighting man or woman leaves. I fear that will be many years from now, since no President will define victory during a struggle. You define the objective on the onset of the battle.

I too am a Conservative and I support this war. Each passing day it gets harder because I have yet heard the President define victory. If we are in Iraq to suck all of the terrorists into one area, that is fine, but that is not victory.

OS

Well said. Thank You.

[beardman2]

[quote=Jarhead]

Originally Posted by beardman2

Maybe you can explain what you mean but isn't that what a president does? It's been a loooong time since one lead troops into battle.

He remains unaffected by his poor decisions. He won't even willingly accept political fallout for his decisions. ie: Invasion of Fallujah, April, THREE YEARS ago...too many civilian casualties, white house orders the cessation of the invasion. Fallujah has caused more casualties than any other city since then. The proper way to execute this invasion was obvious, but Bush would have been "jumped" for doing it, and that would be a bad political decision.

You asked, "In your opinion, what isn't he allowing our troops to do?"

It's not my opinion, it's reality. The rules of engagement have absolutely changed as the war has "progressed." Firing on a "perceived threat" has been disallowed. A truck that won't stop steaming toward your convoy must now be given the benefit of the doubt, right until it detonates. In my opinion it should be destroyed. I have two close friends over there for the second time, and this time they're worried.
There is a Marine on trial (held in CA currently) for "shooting a man in the back." It is undisputed that "his victim" had shot toward the Marine's fire team and was carrying an AK-47 when he was killed as he fled. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have a change of heart if he got away, he would have tried to kill more of our brothers asap. WTF...a Marine's on trial for this?

Krackels, I don't see any solution, easy or hard, that's not my assertion. I'm just dumbfounded by our elected idiots. How long do we want to spend our lives and billions on these vermon? I see Americans pumping billions of our taxpayer dollars, and willingly sending our troops into (for example) Sadre City. It's received with a resounding F$%* You! They take the money, kill our boys, burn our flag and denounce our presence. How the hell is it that we're supporting that?
I support the mission. I suspect that if I was alive, I would have supported WW2, as almost all Americans did. I also suspect that when 135,000 people were killed in our two day assault on Dresdon, Germany; Americans wept for the innocent. We knew then that if a war was worth fighting, it must be faught hard, and our victory was paramount.

What is victory? When the enemy stops swinging back and walks away defeated, even for a while.
Winning hearts and minds hasn't, and never will work. Our military is not a peace keeping force. That should be left to the UN or the French. Our military should make a terrifying adversary. This is no longer the case, as they are subdued. Everyone is worried about our reputation; I guess I am too, for different reasons.

FIGHT OR FLEE!

Thanks for the info. I wasn't aware of the rules of engagement changing like that. I agree its friggin stupid.

[FrankRizzoXD40]

Originally Posted by Old School

In order to have victory, one must first define it. This is my issue with how this White House is dealing with Iraq. Define the objective, meet the objective and get out.

If Bush would have stated that our objectives were to confirm that WMDs did not exist and that we need to remove SH from power in order to keep the peace, we would be out of there. The issue we have now is that the White House has not defined and end game and because of this, the Liberals are beating the same tune day after day.

Victory in Iraq is the day when the last US fighting man or woman leaves. I fear that will be many years from now, since no President will define victory during a struggle. You define the objective on the onset of the battle.

I too am a Conservative and I support this war. Each passing day it gets harder because I have yet heard the President define victory. If we are in Iraq to suck all of the terrorists into one area, that is fine, but that is not victory.

OS

Good post. I agree with many of your points.

Unfortunately for our country, Bush is not nearly as good of a communicator as Reagan was.

Frank