see, i told you, critics tend to make up their own stupid definitions, that is why somtimes people will rephrase things so people will be less likely to put words in their mouth. i dont see any problem with rephrasing things for the purpose of clarity. people mean what they tell you they mean. they are the one in the position to tell you what they are thinking. how is this a negative that time is passing and objectives are evolving? Jsracing is dead on about this one. no matter what, repubicans are wrong.
All countries that sought out democracy on their own, and requested US aid in getting it. Iraq didn't ask to be invaded and be completely destabilized.
You boys are finally starting to get it. :grin: Actually they are playing this change of The Course very smartly. I smell the evil genius Karl Rove. They have decided that flip-flopping before the election would hurt them worse than it would help them with undecided voters. So the new Iraq plan with timetables, milestones, and troops being redeployed will happen after the election. But . . . the crafty neocons have already starting making veiled hints of "tactical changes" and have overtly changed the unyielding tone of their former rhetoric. This may actually help them retain some wavering moderate republicans who will hope this signals a return to pragmatism. Ain't politics funny? When the Democrats advocated timetables, milestones, and troops being redeployed, the Republicans called it "Cut and run". I bet they come up with a jazzy new name for it when the Baker plan is implemented featuring timetables, milestones, and troops being redeployed.
martin, you can't be that naive. Politicians mislead us all of the time. They almost never tell us what they are thinking. They force us to read between the lines. Worse they often offer us contradictions that actually deceive us. Bush, August 2006 -- "We will stay the course." Bush, October 2006 -- "Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” He is either lying or he's stupid . . . or he's changing course.
They were not seeking out democracy on their own. That's ridiculous. The battle after conquering these countries was Democracy vs. Communism. We needed more players on our team to oppose the Ruskies. What, so after conquering them the ruling powers sat down and said "Ok evil country we just fought and died to capture, what form of government would you like? If you need assistance with democracy just fill out these forms here and we'll help, otherwise good luck with whatever you choose"? Yeah. Didn't think so. Germany: conquered and decimated. No central government remaining to seek out democracy. Their system of gov in either side (East/West) was determined by the conquering power. Japan: Entire populace fanatical about the Emporer and the concept of Bushido. Their sense of honor bound them to be completely submissive to their conquerer. MacArthur came in and installed a democratic system. No vote or govt meeting was taken to determine this. We told them. They had no choice. Italy: Ditto. The people only wanted Democracy after being conquered. Facism was all the rage until then. Not from a mass movement. Turkey: Ottomon Empire destroyed in WW1, then governed by Britain, who integrated it into it's Empire. Not from some mass movement. The King don't give a chit. Austria: Same
You make a valid point but there are others at play. Japan and Germany were both decimated, especially Japan, millions of civilians were killed and the economies ruined. The people were sick of bloodshed. So The People decided to cooperate with the Americans, there was no insurgency and no resistence. Not one American soldier was killed in the occupations. Both peoples got with the plan and began to implement it themselves enabling us to leave the country in their hands quickly. It was an American plan and they had no choice but to accept it, but they did accept it and worked hard, as a people, to make it happen. They wanted it. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that we still maintain troops in both of those countires at great expense. Iraq is not a parallel. Our precision bombing did not devastate Iraq and few civilians were killed. The ground war was quick and efficient. Iraq was devastated because they Iraqis sacked and looted their own country! Then they blamed us. They have followed that up by forming militias to kill Americans and to kill each other. They sabotage their own oil industry and kill and kidnap foreign workers trying to rebuild the infrastructure. The ordinary Iraqis sit and do nothing about it, just like they did under Saddam. They just blame us for everything. We've incurred 24,000 casualties and are spending $286 billion a day that we are borrowing from the Chinese and the situation is worse as each year passes. These ungrateful ragheads do not want democracy and are not prepared to conduct one. They are not worthy of American help, dollars, and lives. There is not a democracy in the entire Arab world, including our allies. There are at least three factions that are going to fight out their differences and perhaps three countries will emerge under three strongmen. It ain't our fight. The Kurds alone have gotten with the plan. They are worthy of our continuing support. The Sunnis and the Shiites have to either become our friends or our enemies. This business where we allow them to be both at the same time is absurd. We are paying part of them and defending them while the other part hides among the apathetic civilians and make a guerrilla war upon us and each other.
flip flopping is when you change your position on a static issue, like abortion. a war is a dynamic event that requires changes in strategy. like if a football coach gets ahead and he starts running the ball to kill the clock after passing the whole game. that isnt flip-flopping, it is just adjusting to changing situations, which leaders are supposed to do. again, you are talking as if time does not pass. there is time when leaving is the right thing to do, and if you do it too early, it is a bad idea. thats why the same plan is bad at one time and good at another time.
i am that naive. in general i think bush is honest, probbaly the most honest politician i have ever seen. if he is changing course, shouldnt you be happy and supporting him for making a decision you like better than his previous plan?
So why did it take him so long to understand what Colin Powell advised him four years ago? Nice try. The fact is that he is reversing his former policy, not because anything has changed regarding the situation, but because he is waking up and smelling the political coffee. A hot steaming mug of "cut and run". I'll bet you a 6-pack of Corona that Rumsfeld doesn't last a month after the election.
