Originally posted by JaTo:
The number of American casualties PALES in comparison to the losses that Hussein's regime have taken, in addition to the insurgency losses...

So you think Bush's conduct of the war is a success so long as the body count is in our favor? That is truly sick. Not since Vietnam has anyone (except you) tried to pass off body counts as evidence of winning.

Originally posted by JaTo:
NO ONE has ever controlled the poppy/herion trade in Afghanistan. Neither the British, the Russians or anyone else that has invaded it.

You concede that Bush has failed to control this trade (an essential source of terrorist funding), even though it is right out in the open and could be eliminated with proper troop levels and committment.

BTW, I hope you are not trying to argue that Bush should be excused for this failure, just because others have failed in the past. A failure is a failure; it is not a success just because others have failed too.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Unless we place a US troop at every hut and goat stand in Afghanistan, the borders and rual areas (like in almost every other 3rd world country) will always be open for the Islamic extremists to operate in and out of with ease.

What in the world . . .? Do you really mean this? Even the Bush Administration is still asserting that Afghanistan will be secured, and have a democratic election, and will become a solid mainstream nation state. You are turning Bush doctrine on its head! You are saying the task of securing Afghanistan is impossible, and that much of Afghanistan will always be an open haven for terrorists. If you are correct, then what was the purpose of our invasion there? Why would you support the expensive and deadly war to oust the Taliban, when you assert that they (or other Islamic extremists) will always be able to operate there? Why would you support Bush when you don't share his goals in Afghanistan, and you don't think they are even realistic?

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
8. U.S. military action in Afghanistan came so late and with such a small force that it all but ensured that Bin Laden and most other Al Quaeda and Taliban fighters would easily escape.

Thank Billy-Bob Clinton for thise one. We had Bin-Laden in our sights with accurate intelligence telling us where he was up until late '99-'00 (per the 9/11 commission report). Clinton didn't want the potential collateral damage, as Bin-Laden often slept in populated areas.

HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa. I have never heard even the most partisan Bush lackey try to pin Bush's failures in Afghanistan on ex-president Clinton.

Again, please focus on the topic at hand. My point was that Bush botched the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by going in too late and too light. Changing the subject to Clinton is comical.

Originally posted by JaTo:
So, we should have struck at Afghanistan pre-emptively to facilitate the potential capture or death of Taliban/Al-Qaeda elements, though not done this in Iraq, despite 10 years of the Iraqi regime thumbing their noses at INTERNATIONALLY recognized and supported sanctions? What's the weather like on Planet Moron?

I have no idea what point this paragraph is attempting to make.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The administration â??delegatedâ? the fight in Tora Bora (our last real chance to capture Al Quaedaâ??s leadership) to local warlords, who had no real incentive to capture Al Quaeda leaders. Almost all Al Quaeda leaders and fighters escaped to Pakistan. Due to lack of U.S. troops, the administration delegated the control of the Afghan/Pakistan border to the Pakistani military; Pakistani troops did not even attempt to guard the border.



No argument from me here; we could have handled this MUCH better.



Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
9. Bush deployed too few troops in Iraq. Many thousands of innocent Iraqis died and ancient treasures were destroyed because the U.S. went in with just enough troops to depose Saddam, but not enough troops to secure the country.

Replace Bush with Rumsfeld, and I would agree, though I understand that the captain of the ship is ultimately responsible for the overall health of it and the direction it heads. There's a not insignificant portion of the Pentagon brass that needs to take some heat over things as well...

JaTo concedes two points (albeit patently obvious ones)? Wait while I recover from the shock.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Iraqâ??s borders and rural areas are still unsecured. Much of the country has become a shooting gallery in which jihadists, mercenaries, suicide bombers and disgruntled Baathists are shooting and bombing U.S. soldiers.

Iraq's borders are IMPOSSIBLE to secure. What's your point? Put a half-million troops in there and the Islamic nutbags would still be streaming in from Syria, Iran and Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

My point is that Bush has put our troops at unnecessary risk by committing TOO FEW troops to do the job. He has also put them in a virtual shooting gallery without adequate protection. What was so hard to understand about this point?

Securing Iraq is "IMPOSSIBLE"? Then what are we doing there? What could we possibly accomplish there if we can't even secure the country? How could we do what Bush has said we are there to do (save the Iraqis from bad leadership, conduct elections, turn it into a model of democracy, avert Islamic extremism, etc). Again, you are stating a position that is in fundamental conflict with that of your candidate (who you support, you have said, mainly because of his policies and performance in the war). You have to explain these contradictions.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
10. Bush named Iran and North Korea as part of his â??axis of evilâ? and said they are developing nukes capable of reaching the U.S., but he has done nothing about them.

So, I guess we should pre-emptively act here, too, right, because ALL situations and circumstances are the SAME (well, at least to an uneducated moron, or someone touting the sewage of propaganda)? The US along with the UN is actively engaging with Iran and DPRK about their nuclear aspirations and goals. This is FAR from doing nothing, unless whoever wrote this piece of trash thinks that diplomacy doesn't work and we should simply level the Hell out of both areas due to what appear as valid concerns (then why are they b!tching about our actions in Iraq?).

You are flopping around like a fish in a bucket here. On the one hand, you support unilateral military force in Iraq, but on the other hand you support diplomacy toward Iran and NK? Throwing up straw men (alleging that I support "leveling" Iran, or that I support pre-emptive force there) is silly in an online forum, because it is easy to see that I suggested nothing of the sort.

Please focus, young man. I made the simple point that Bush has been distracted by Iraq and has all but ignored the threat of Iran and NK. In other words, he has pretended that Iraq was some immediate and grave threat, while ignoring more serious threats like Iran and NK. But you did not address that point. You went off into wild speculation about what I think should be done about Iran and NK. That would be an interesting topic, but it is not the topic of this thread. No need for me to go on here; I think you agree that Bush has been distracted by Iraq and has given short shrift to Iran and NK. So my simple point has been made.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Both Iran and North Korea have nuclear and missile technology, and they have surged ahead in their WMD programs, in an attempt to be have a full nuclear arsenal before the U.S. recovers from the war in Iraq.

By all estimates, they were pushing for nuclear technology BEFORE the Iraq invasion and into the Clinton years...

All the more reason for Bush to have been aware of the REAL threats there, and NOT to be distracted by a weak dictator in Iraq, who tried to kill his father.

Originally posted by JaTo:
Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
11. The war in Iraq has reduced the U.S.â?? options with regard to Iran and North Korea. We now have fewer deployable soldiers, poorer finances, and less international support. Iran and North Korea need have virtually no fear that the U.S. will take military action against them in the near future, as we are stretched thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the American public is too weary and skeptical of Bush to support another war.

Our options with DPRK have ALWAYS been limited because of a rather large country that shares a northern border with it; perhaps you have heard of it:

CHINA.

Unless Kim Jong-Il goes completely off his rocker, we are stuck working a solution out together with China. Period. End of story.

Dodging the question again. The point I made here is that Iran and NK have little to fear from us while we are bogged down in Iraq. We are in no position to address Iran and NK with any authority right now, because our diplomatic and miltary forces are engaged elsewhere. Our options have been reduced, period. A very simple and irrefutable premise. No one tries to refute it, and neither did you.

Instead, you went off on another tangent, barking about how China is somehow preventing the world's only superpower from bringing NK under control. This is defeatism, JaTo, and it is just excuse-mongering for Bush. You are so busy making excuses for your candidate that you are not willing to admit that he has focused on the wrong places.

Only up to number 12! Oh, well, I'll finish later.


2000 Contour LX