• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Is everything Bush's fault ?

N

NightCrawler

Diamond Member
It seems like everything that goes wrong is somehow Bush's fault but nobody blames the military itself for at times gross stupidity.

The 380 tons of weapons should have been protected, I doubt Bush knew the details about them or all the other depots of weapons.

The military needs to think for itself a little bit doesn't it ?


I'm starting to worry our millitary can't get the job done, maybe we are a paper tiger!
 
Originally posted by: polm
thats why they call him Commander-in-Cheif .
Click to expand...


Does Bush really need to tell the military to protect 380 tons of explosives or is that something the military should figure out on it's own?
 
I'm starting to worry our millitary can't get the job done, maybe we are a paper tiger!


Our Military can do their job very well - swiftly and efficiently.

What they are having to do now is 'Not Their Job'- they are having to act in a capacity that
a defensive or even an offensive military is not designed to perform in as a combat unit.

The UN is the force that deals with nation building after a combat unit has de-fanged
the opponent. You loose credability when a military turns it's weapons upon the civilians.
 
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
I'm starting to worry our millitary can't get the job done, maybe we are a paper tiger!


Our Military can do their job very well - swiftly and efficiently.

What they are having to do now is 'Not Their Job'- they are having to act in a capacity that
a defensive or even an offensive military is not designed to perform in as a combat unit.

The UN is the force that deals with nation building after a combat unit has de-fanged
the opponent. You loose credability when a military turns it's weapons upon the civilians.
Click to expand...

holy bold-face type , Batman !
 
yeah, in fact vietnam was 1/8,744,000th john kerry's fault. he partcipated on the degree of 1 in 8.8 million soldiers deployed so he should shoulder the blame. bush stayed out of it so he should get no flak over vietnam.
 
although I agree with you NightCrawler on the 380 tons. I do think most of our problems in Iraq is the Bush administration's fault.

The chief thing being that they didn't follow the outgoing Chief of Staff recommendation to put 300,000 troops on the ground instead of 140,000. More manpower could have allowed for more sites to be protected. Some say it might have also been more intimidating force that Iraqis might not have decided to resist.

Secondly they should have kept and rehired former Baathist party members and soldiers. But instead they let most of the people with military training melt away and later join the resistance when they started needing money.

I think these two things are the cause of most of our problems in Iraq today and are both the Bush administration's fault.



 
Look, you guys must have some brains, otherwise you probably wouldn't be posting here. However, i find your lack of comprehension baffling.
1. The soldiers would not be there but for Bushs's insistence on attacking Iraq.
2. The troop numbers, strategy, and conduct of the war is a product of the "planning" done by...President Bush and his administration.
Come on! Talk about critical thinking!
 
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Originally posted by: polm
thats why they call him Commander-in-Cheif .
Click to expand...


Does Bush really need to tell the military to protect 380 tons of explosives or is that something the military should figure out on it's own?
Click to expand...

I don't know, who told the military to protect the oil ministry instead of those explosives?

It's easier to point the finger at the top guy. It was Clinton, now Bush's turn.
 
excuse fu*king me ... when has GWB taken ANY responsiblity for anything in his whole fu*cking life. You have yes-man defending him until the day he is voted out of office (in 8 days).

9-11 -Clinton's fault
Anthrax ???
Iraq intelligence failure - but everyone else thought so - I'm only the leader of the free world.
budget deficit 2.7 trillion to national debt- it's 9-11
1.6 million private sector jobs lost - it's 9-11
recession - nope Clinton's watch
Abu Ghraib - rogue peon reservists
Valerie Plame -don't know, I'll ask around though
flu vaccine - don't get one
not enough armor/supplies - well it was a catastrophic sucess so we won too quickly ... Kerry didn't vote for 87 billion which passed anyway.
loss of 377 TONs of explosives - well there was so much of it around we couldn't secure this known source

Pick one and take responsiblity - GWB loves to quote Truman - well the bucks stops everywhere but on the desk of GWB.
:thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Look, you guys must have some brains, otherwise you probably wouldn't be posting here. However, i find your lack of comprehension baffling.
1. The soldiers would not be there but for Bushs's insistence on attacking Iraq.
2. The troop numbers, strategy, and conduct of the war is a product of the "planning" done by...President Bush and his administration.
Come on! Talk about critical thinking!
Click to expand...

And not one General was willing to complain to the public and say that we need 500,000 troops before the war began which is a failure if military leadership. The entire military kept silent.
 
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Look, you guys must have some brains, otherwise you probably wouldn't be posting here. However, i find your lack of comprehension baffling.
1. The soldiers would not be there but for Bushs's insistence on attacking Iraq.
2. The troop numbers, strategy, and conduct of the war is a product of the "planning" done by...President Bush and his administration.
Come on! Talk about critical thinking!
Click to expand...

And not one General was willing to complain to the public and say that we need 500,000 troops before the war began which is a failure if military leadership. The entire military kept silent.
Click to expand...

Those people who spoke out got sacked.
 
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
seriously, we have a $400+ billion military and can't even fight war on 2 fronts. this is downright embarrassing and to put it in perspective we almost spend more on our military THAN THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED

at those spending levels, we should be able to DEFEAT THE ENTIRE WORLD but can't even win in 2 fronts that are meager 3rd world countries

http://www.globalissues.org/Ge...ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-07.htm

SHOCK AND "AWE SH!T..."
Click to expand...
If we used all necessary means, we could defeat the entire world. As in Vietnam, however, a limited military action has its inevitable weaknesses.
 
sorry NightCrawler, I see your point, but the simple fact is; When the team fails, the leader is to blame.
 
Originally posted by: polm
sorry NightCrawler, I see your point, but the simple fact is; When the team fails, the leader is to blame.
Click to expand...
Apparently in Bush's circle, its everyone else that is to blame. Look at Kenneth Lay. "Oh, I didn't know about the cooked books. I plead ignorance." :roll:

 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
seriously, we have a $400+ billion military and can't even fight war on 2 fronts. this is downright embarrassing and to put it in perspective we almost spend more on our military THAN THE ENTIRE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED

at those spending levels, we should be able to DEFEAT THE ENTIRE WORLD but can't even win in 2 fronts that are meager 3rd world countries

http://www.globalissues.org/Ge...ArmsTrade/Spending.asp
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0609-07.htm

SHOCK AND "AWE SH!T..."
Click to expand...
If we used all necessary means, we could defeat the entire world. As in Vietnam, however, a limited military action has its inevitable weaknesses.
Click to expand...

Oh no...the secret plan has been let out! :Q

Uh...no. There is no defeating the entire world....everyone would perish should it come to something like that. No victor.
 
And not one General was willing to complain to the public and say that we need 500,000 troops before the war began which is a failure if military leadership. The entire military kept silent.


That's not quite true now, is it.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm">There were several that voiced this opinion at the start, and they were 'Retired'
as not being 'Team Players' to the Administrations likeing.</a>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top