Why did it take BUSH so long???

Question

To request a surge in troops? Why has he fought a PC war and brought down the Republican Congress along with him? Why has the Congress gone along with all his liberal policies? Why can't we get a real conservative in Washington? Why can't we elect Michael Savage?

http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/

Answer 1

Bush is just another socialist! The Republican party will never stand for minimal government again!

Answer 2

He's a little slow.

Its like this, politics aside, Mr. Bush bit off far more than the country can chew without a manditory service military or without extensive allied help. Since we have neither we will loose or we will destroy our military morale and services in the process of denial since there are many many military studies which strongly suggest that overdeployment and overwork lead to mental stress,divorce,alcholisim etc, since the engagements in Centcom, we've seen these situations reach epidemic proportions in the military as it is, adding 20,000 troops is wholey insufficient.

Furthermore adding more troops misses the point of this conflict.

By invading Iraq, Mr. Bush took the lid off of a seething caludron of ethnic hatreds which were only BARELY suppressed by brutal totalitarian dictatorship and extermination / purges / liquidation of the persons associated with the slightest uprisings.

This cauldron might have been brought to a managble simmer by our military occupation forces had there not been a couple of critical flaws in our overall strategy which are plain to see.

1. Sympathetic elements of the Saudi principalities have been funneling money to the Sunni's since day one of the war. This traffic would need to be eliminated otherwise, our gas-guzzling directly finances the shipment of arms to kill our soldiers and cause general unrest in the northern midlands of Iraq.

2. Sympathetic elements of the Shia majority of Iraq needed to be defanged early on. They would of course naturally dominate in any democractic contests simply on virtue of demographics. Unfortunately for our presidents friends at the AEI, Shia Islam is the primary faith of our "enemy" Iran. So now we have Iran funneling cash/munisions to the Shia for the same purposes as above.

3. Coupled with this simple demographic fact, is the utter failure on the part of the administration to engage constructively the Iranian government. Promoting moderates and strengthening their positions through demonstrated constructive dialog. This has emboldened hard-liners and the more radical elements so that now both countries feed off of the "they're evil" - "we must defend ourselves" - rhetoric, which the US is currently unpreprared to deal with effectively.

Its a rhetorical line which plays wonderfully over at the American Enterprise Institute but is profoundly against the interests of the republic at this time. Personally, from these simple, obvious, observations, if a rhetorical line can be so divorced from the common good, why is it given ANY credence at all, I ask.

We don't need a single more troop to effectively win this war, we need a competent President, and fresh political thinking.

And as far as the war on terrorism is concerned, there isn't one.

We've outsourced the bulk of that actual job to NATO and predictably because it's not "their" war, while troops on the ground are fighting and dying, the politicians in Europe are doing a rather ham-handed job,waiting for the 2008 elections, and we are no closer to preventing Al Qaeda from doing - whatever it wants.

Here's hoping the "Spring" offensive will help.

From a longer term perspective, the militaristic thinking is not helpful from the long-view. It's not greatly insightful to realize that we are fighting a war that is not possible to win through conventional military means.

Furthermore even a passing reading of the Koran clearly shows that its untenable and offensive to most/all muslims that a non-muslim power occupy part of the historical "Ummah". So there will be NO real cooperation on the part of our friends in the middle east. No Japan or German style occupation forces.

We either develop a political/diplomatic settlement, what would certainly be considered appeasment, from the rumblings of the AEI crowd, or we just wait, and let the whole thing cook and with salt in the wound, we wait for the next big thing, a far more catastrophic set of circumstances than 9/11 -- inspired by our occupation.

When another domestic or large international terrorist attack occurs, (since the US actually does far less than it should to actually "prevent" such incursions). When New York or Washington or some other US city or cities have been
wiped off the map in some "Jerhico" type event.

A conventional military response, however entertaining it might seem to our dear friends in the middle east will be off the table.

They will rather suddenly realize that there is - in all certainty a dead-mans lever on the US retailiatory nuclear capability. Only then, after a few million dead muslims are left unburied, will there will be a sincere and probably concerted effort to ensure that what remains of Islam's body politic will not tolerate collaboration with or being hijacked by some religious fanatics or again decimated by provoking/forcing another nuclear response.

There are ways to prevent war which make good and decent sense, mankind however has repeatedly proven that he is incapable of making the correct decisions on the first try.

Answer 3

It's obvious why it took Bush so long. The man is stubborn and pig headed, he claims he listens to other opinions, but that is a blatant lie. And if you think Michael Savage can be elected, then you are sadly mistaken friend. He's to much of an extremist, moderates won't have anything to do with lunatics like him and Coulter.

Answer 4

yup you are right. it was all about being PC and appeasing both sides of the aisle. things just dont work that way. the republican party needs a rebirth and to get rid of the dead wood in it. these liberals posing as republicans need to get out of the republican party and join the other moderates or liberals. let's bring back the reagan era. hail to ronaldus maximus.

Answer 5

If he's for snubbing congress and willing to TAKE CHARGE, and send the troops and artillary to finish this war I'm all for him. I'd also like to see someone kick Iran to the curb and shut them up and close them down. They've begged us for 30 years to do it and as long as we're there DO IT.

Answer 6

Hes done three previous surges, he hasn't outlined a clear path to victory and what would constitute one at least one that hasn't changed. He, in fact is a poor general and it has nothing to do with liberal or conservative but everything to do with his effectiveness and capability. He isn't a good Republican, Conservative, or Liberal strategist, its him, not his supposed affiliation.

Answer 7

Whatever Americans say or do,apart from USA,most people from around the world hates the American government from the bottom of their hearts.They can deny it and defend themselves,but they cannot prove I'm wrong.

Answer 8

Do you seriously believe Savage is crazy enough to entertain this?

Answer 9

Too many questions to answer. What is done is done. Michael Savage is an idiot.

Answer 10

bush is just retarded