It was useful rhetoric - but King George never told us what "the course" was. Now he uses emotion-laden terms like "victory" and oh yes, we must not "lose" or be "defeated", but he does not take the time to tell is what these words mean to him.
A gambler who loses a lot will sometimes gamble even more, in the vain hope that if he bets ever more and more of his resources surely he must win. Wiser players know that there comes a time to cut your losses and get out. Rats will run a maze but eventually figure out NO CHEESE.
Getting out with as few additional casualties as can be achieved makes sense now. Going in was a mistake. Is Bush too vain to admit that he erred? Does he think that wasting more lives and dollars now is going to prove how very "right" he was?
Lyndon Johnson blew his career by unreasonably persisting in his doomed war. Is Bush so dumb that he will make the same mistake?
What does Bush imagine we have to gain by expending ever more of our wealth and lives
2007-02-27 13:28:25 · 3 answers · asked by fra59e 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
If "victory" is touted as a goal, the politician who uses the word should get beyond its emotional impact and tell us exactly what "victory" means in concrete terms. What observable and measurable results are to be achieved to constitute "victory"? Is it an achievable goal? If so, what price is America expected to pay to achieve it? I get really, really tired of emotional appeals and specious comparisons to WW2 with no definition of terms. Who does GWB think he is kidding? How dumb does he think we are?
2007-02-27 13:54:11 · update #1
What’s funny is that by opposing the troop surge, the same democrats that blasted the president for wanting to ‘stay the course’ are in effect, supporting staying the course.
The democratic objective is simple. Oppose whatever the president wants. He could come in with the perfect plan to achieve victory, and may well have, but they would oppose it. this war has become a political objective, and it sickens me. Neither the president, nor his opponents are doing the honorable thing which is to enact the best possible strategy. Where are the suggestions from the democrats? There are none, just opposition. By defining themselves by what they oppose and not by what they would enact to better the situation saves them the ridicule that they are heaping on the president, but it is a weak, and juvenile position that betters no one.
2007-02-27 13:40:20 · answer #1 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Bush could have done a better job. Could you have done better? The whining is nonstop from the likes of you. Why are you so upset? I think you are very ignorant or egoist or both. Regardless of how we got here, whether we like it or not, we are engaged. Commitments are made, progress in motion, lives of hundreds of thousand, if not millions (outside of the US for those that think we are the center of the universe) are benefitting.
In fact, I will be there in a year, I will reserve a seat for you so you can come see first hand (not on TV) what I am talking about.
A good reminder for me about how different the perspective and understanding is for every one of us. It must be frustrating for you to find NO CHEESE in our government's choices. There are plenty of other governments that may be more suitable for you. China, North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, Iran...
2007-02-27 18:22:47 · answer #2 · answered by CrookedGrin35 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This war has always been about the price of oil, period.
The rest is just lies.
2007-02-27 13:40:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋