Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

[CheapyD]

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa (Reuters) - After launching two wars, President Bush (news - web sites) said on Tuesday he wanted to be a "peace president" and took swipes at his Democratic rivals for being lawyers and weak on defense.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=10&u=/nm/campaign_bush_dc

[Rodimus]

It's a little to late to say that I would think.

[Thunderscope]

LOL, Yeah Right!

[MrBadExample]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

[CheapyD]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

[Aryss]

I wanted to be a helicopter pilot when I was little. It didn't happen.

We should have a contest on who can put the best caption of what he is thinking in that picture.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

[MrBadExample]

I wanted to be a helicopter pilot when I was little. It didn't happen.

We should have a contest on who can put the best caption of what he is thinking in that picture.

You're assuming that he IS thinking.

[Tromack]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

[Rodimus]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

touche

[Aryss]

I wanted to be a helicopter pilot when I was little. It didn't happen.

We should have a contest on who can put the best caption of what he is thinking in that picture.

You're assuming that he IS thinking.

:lol:

[dennis_t]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.

BUMP!

I suppose what really disgusts me about his current tactic is that just months ago he was defending himself on Meet The Press by saying, "I'm a war president." What changed over those few months, except the fact that more people are catching onto his crap?

[Dok Diamond]

I want to be a dentist

[Rodimus]

I suppose what really disgusts me about his current tactic is that just months ago he was defending himself on Meet The Press by saying, "I'm a war president." What changed over those few months, except the fact that more people are catching onto his crap?

I'm shocked people haven't caught on yet. Kinda like the blind leading the blind.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Tromack, you're as educated on military and historical matters as I am on quantum physics.

[Gregory Kimball]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war. But, I don't think we're being critical of that Bush war. The second one was a bit more of a downright stupid decision, and is a bit harder to link with a "peace president."

Dubya Caption - "Got to concentrate... Country under attack... Huh? The third little piggy said WHAT?"

^I can't remember exactly what book he was reading, but I imagine there are lots of third little piggies spread across the literary world.

[ingotheranchhand]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

[Tromack]

Tromack, you're as educated on military and historical matters as I am on quantum physics.

Tell me what are your credentials. I'd really like to hear this.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war.

Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

[MrBadExample]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

So why exactly are you reading this?

[Aryss]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

Wow, what a complete tool to assume that gamers are not educated or politcally aware. You don't know the people here nor anything about their level of involvement. You should really go back to the basement.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

[Rodimus]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

So why exactly are you reading this?

I think it's someone who signed up to CheapassGamer just so they could say how stupid they think we are. I mean look only 2 posts.

But I guess he's right, people that play video games don't have a right to an opinion.

[MrBadExample]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Delta (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

Really no offense intended here, but just because you work for a company doesn't mean you know how to run it.

And I commend you on your service.

[DCriminal]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

Speak for yourself. I consider myself to be very well educated on our political system, as well as the contemporary issues that our country is facing.

Oh and I am doing plenty about it. I just relocated to a swing state, I give money to candidates that I support on the local and national level, and I vote regularly. :) I have found that some people actually give a "rats ass" about what I think because of those reasons.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

MBE, I did run the company. From 94-96 I helped train nearly 80% of the armored units in this country. I was in the top 5% of the graduating class of my section from the war college. You don't get to be an instructor at the NTC because you're a step above potato peeler.

[Tromack]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Delta (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

Yes.

How does being in the army make you an expert on:
a) politics
b) the intelligence community
c) history

From what I can tell, you know how to accept orders and shoot things. I thank you for protecting our country, but you have no greater knowledge of any of this than I do.

[WildWop]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Delta (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

So then you're qualified to lecture us on political policy and the functioning of our intelligence agencies? Great to see that you served our country, but honestly that has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree with how Bush is running things.

War strategy != Political agenda

Obviously we are good at the war aspect of what has gone on. The actual conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq were quick and efficient. Bluntly put, we kicked some ass. However, politics came into play after the main conflict, and promptly failed to meet the needs of the situation. The Bush administration failed the people of Afghanistan by prematurely pulling out much of our presence there, and shifting focus to Iraq. They have failed the men and women stationed over in Iraq by not dealing with the issues plaguing the country in an efficient and competent manner.

[MrBadExample]

I wasn't saying you didn't know how to do your job. I'm sure you did. I'm saying fighting a war and deciding to go to war are two different disciplines and knowing how to do one does not mean you automatically know how to do the other.

EDIT: for grammar

[dennis_t]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

As has been said before, thank you for your service to our country. I have nothing but respect for the people who put their lives on the line for us.

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

[PawnTakesKing]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, I mean hasn't this political debate crap gone on long enough? Everytime I look at CAG I see floods of political topics on the boards from people who just won't drop the issue. Let's all just vote in November for whoever we're gonna vote for and talk about video games like good boys and girls, ok? :D

EDIT: for grammar

[gomer1andonly]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

Seriously, do you think any of us Cheapassgamers, let alone the head Cheapass himself who originally posted this, give a rats ass what a person who's posted twice since he's joined thinks about this thread.

I seriously doubt that you really understand any of us enough to make a fair assumption that we have nothing to contribute to such discussions as these.

Quit trying to tell others who have been here alot longer and have much to offer to a discussion about issues such as these that they don't understand anything about them.

Thank you and please, get a life.

[dennis_t]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, I mean hasn't this political debate crap gone on long enough? Everytime I look at CAG I see floods of political topics on the boards from people who just won't drop the issue. Let's all just vote in November for whoever we're gonna vote for and talk about video games like good boys and girls, ok? :D

EDIT: for grammar

I think it's great that we can discuss issues of import along with how to get $4.99 CC games. If you don't like the political discussion, don't click on the thread.

[MrBadExample]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

Do they teach diplomacy and when you should not go to war in war college?

[Rodimus]

Can't we all just get along?

Seriously, I mean hasn't this political debate crap gone on long enough? Everytime I look at CAG I see floods of political topics on the boards from people who just won't drop the issue. Let's all just vote in November for whoever we're gonna vote for and talk about video games like good boys and girls, ok? :D

EDIT: for grammar

I guess nothing exciting is going on in the video game world.

Ya know they sould make a SIM President of the US. The we could play games and be political!

[ingotheranchhand]

Agreed. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know more about war and politics than us. This bloody site is about games and how to get them cheap. Just realize that almost no one is going to change their minds about politics becuase they read something on a message board.
Quit preaching to the choir, ignorant hipocrits or people who could care less and realize that you are not always right and even if you are their is a point that the topic should be droped.



Stupid People Disclaimer
(correct-spelling is not perfect in the above post. Nor did I attempt to be gramaticlly correct. This is a message board.)

[MaxBiaggi3]

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

Your arrogance and overconfidence will take you far in life. I'd love to see your reaction in November if your juvenile posturing on behalf of this failed administration doesn't see W & Company return to office.

[magilacudy]

Plus, I'm sure the military would teach you an objective, unbiased version of politics in general.

[ZForce915]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

Hey Pittsburgh, what are you waiting for...a medal? You constantly run your mouth attacking other people on this thread like you're a goddamn genuis. If you are so smart and so educated then what the hell are you doing agruing on the internet?

Oh, and don't think I'm not greatful for your service. I am. But when you serve us and then demand respect, you lose mine.

[Rodimus]

Agreed. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know more about war and politics than us. This bloody site is about games and how to get them cheap. Just realize that almost no one is going to change their minds about politics becuase they read something on a message board.
Quit preaching to the choir, ignorant hipocrits or people who could care less and realize that you are not always right and even if you are their is a point that the topic should be droped.



Stupid People Disclaimer
(correct-spelling is not perfect in the above post. Nor did I attempt to be gramaticlly correct. This is a message board.)

Dude get ready for whole bunch of bashing cause you're about to get it.

[MrBadExample]

Agreed. Clausewitz and Sun Tzu know more about war and politics than us. This bloody site is about games and how to get them cheap. Just realize that almost no one is going to change their minds about politics becuase they read something on a message board.
Quit preaching to the choir, ignorant hipocrits or people who could care less and realize that you are not always right and even if you are their is a point that the topic should be droped.



Stupid People Disclaimer
(correct-spelling is not perfect in the above post. Nor did I attempt to be gramaticlly correct. This is a message board.)

*because
*hypocrites
*there
*dropped
*grammatically

-no charge

[Lootr2Core]

What do you think they teach you at the army war college besides how intelligence and history teach us how to fight and win wars?

You have zero idea what it the military is about and war is an extension of politics. I guess since you're so intimately familiar with the topic you can lecture me on how Clausewitz was wrong on that principle and you, a message board poster who is probably on summer vacation from school, is right.

Another post where you state that (basically) everyone else on this board are more ignorant/stupid/ than you because they post on a msg board, why do you waste your time typing your opinion? If everyone followed your example noone should listen to anyone one here.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.

Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.

The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

[Lootr2Core]

a p.s. I like reading other people's point of view, and taking their opinion into account as I constantly investigate opinions. Call me strange but I actually believe in the concept of DEBATE--which in not the constant arguing of a statement without thinking about any other statements it is

a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

think about carefully; weigh

[Lootr2Core]

[quote]T

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

.


And another example of your type of 'debate' "you have no idea" ah yes, you have all the answers and anyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't have the 'right' view.

[MrBadExample]

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

Had these troops you talked to come back from Iraq?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Of course Lootr2Core takes "you have no idea" as a slam on debating style when he is able to accurately contrast U.S. Army troop morale under Clinton versus under Bush. Go ahead, I'm all ears. Tell me how you think morale in the armed forces compares from 1996 to today.

EDIT: MBE in answer to your question, about a third have. Some are butter bars straight from the class of 2004 at West Point that are all gung ho and ready to spit nails. That's typical of young officers in time of war... and all Marines (I kid, I kid if you're a jarhead.).

I would say the troops I came across from Iraq were as well off as any combat troops I've seen. The heaviest casualties have been suffered by the Marines where some units have had 60% causalty rates. That doesn't mean fatalities. Causalty rates include dead and wounded. For example if John Kerry gets one in the leg on a Swift boat with a crew of 5? That unit has a 20% casualty rate.

The worst morale situations have been with the reserves. That's typically the units and gripes you hear about having low morale in the press. Units that have people that don't want to re-up. These are mostly people who signed up for free college money and never had any idea they'd actually be forced into service. They expected the reserves to be a big boy's Scounting group. Unfortunately I don't deal with any reserve units so I can't attest to their morale.

Hope that helps.[/b]

[dennis_t]

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.

Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.

The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

A couple of points:

(1) I notice that you never responded to the point regarding Bush's cuts to military medical benefits. Given that both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are creating more casualties, don't you think this was the worst possible time to make those cuts?

(2) RE: the flak jackets. The military had months upon months to prepare for the Iraq war, and would have had even longer had Bush given the weapons inspectors the chance to learn there were no WMDs in Iraq. So I don't buy your argument that it comes down to a requisition issue.

Also, are you saying that our troops don't deserve flak jackets because they won't protect them in every single instance? I'm sorry, but if folks like yourself are going to put their lives on the line, I want them to have every single advantage. Rationalize all you want, but flak jackets and armored Humvees provide an advantage that our soldiers in Iraq did not enjoy.

[mcwilliams132]

peace through victory..

[Rodimus]

I think some people got to much war on the brain.

[dennis_t]

That said, could you explain something to me? While in office, Bush has cut military pay, military medical benefits, and sent our troops to war with inadequate supplies. How, as a military person, can you defend his policies when he has done so poorly by the troops?

This is a softball. Bush hasn't cut military pay. He slowed the growth of miliatry pay. Benefits are the same for active duty personnel and personnel drawn into active duty. The armed forces were NOT sent into Iraq with less than adequate supplies despite the reports in the press and the underground/leftist belief.

Armored HUMMERS? They aren't the answer. Neither are the Strykers which were/are being brought up faster (New weapon system.) to protect from roadside bombs. The biggest fault of the Army as far as inadequate protection was prematurely retiring M113's which were the Vietnam era APC's. They aren't sexy, they aren't state of the art but they would be much better than an up armored Hummer. However the army brass always wants sexy new weapons systems even if they aren't the best for the job. They have to incease the budgets. That's an organizational fault that's gone back generations.

The flack jacket debate? Flack jackets will stop shrapnel from a flung grenade but won't stop a small arms round. No body armor will stop an RPG-7 which are as common in Iraq as cell phones seemingly are at home. The issue has never been body armor but getting it delievered. It's not uncommon for requistions to take 6 or more weeks even with a light colonel asking for stuff. Again, that's an organizational fault not a NCA (National Command Authority= President) responsibility.

You have no idea how much different morale is under Bush than it was under Clinton. You'll notice I resigned my commission in 1996? That coincided with Clinton's re-election. Don't believe most of what the press coverage is telling you. It simply isn't as accurate as you're being lead to believe.

How do I know? I just got back from Carlisle and teaching a section on Guderian's romp through the lowlands and France in 1940. Morale amongst the troops I encountered was very good. Not the best I've seen but far from the worst.

One more thing: Do you think troops sent into a fire fight deserve to have raises, or to have those raises "slowed"? I would think you'd want to pay them as much as possible, to keep them happy in intolerable circumstances.

[mcwilliams132]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

[magilacudy]

Yeah, I agree with mcwilliams on that. There's nothing he could've done in that 7 minutes or so that would've made a difference.

[jmcc]

Hey, PAafterD, I just read up a little on Clausewitz. Can the idea of war as a political tool apply anymore outside of dicatorial/oligarchal governments? It seems to me that if it's to work like he says you have to be able to force a pure concensus on making war from your populace, an ability that we don't have and will never have in America (not to mention that I don't think we'd ever allow anything other than a limited war anymore.)

[dennis_t]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.

In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.

If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.

The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.

[Lootr2Core]

Of course Lootr2Core takes "you have no idea" as a slam on debating style when he is able to accurately contrast U.S. Army troop morale under Clinton versus under Bush. Go ahead, I'm all ears. Tell me how you think morale in the armed forces compares from 1996 to today.

I don't believe I am in a place to make a comparision as 1) in 1996 we were not at war, 2) I have not not been overseas during a deployment, 3) the number of people that I have talked to are limited.

In 92-94 I was going to college in North Dakota where there is a large air force base, I worked with several airman (single guys who often took on a small part time job) and their morale seemed very good, well to be honest I never asked 'how is morale?' but they never complained about the state of affairs or the like. My sister in law is in the Navy, (not currently deployed in any hostile waters) and she says the people she hangs with (I have asked her "whats the mood of your friends) don't really say the mood is great, or bad (so ambivilant or content would have to describe it.

I have had many conversations with returning Guardsman (North Dakota has the hightest per capita I believe) the majority that I have visited with are very proud to be serving overseas in Iraq. They have a good sense that they have been paid to train for a purpose for many years and they see their deployment as a way to 'pay back' what was invested in them. While they are very proud of being deployed, I have heard a greater amount of questioning as to whether it was worth it, or whether the 12-18 months that they spent over there accomplished much.

Well thats how I think morale compares now with then, does that answer your question?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Minot AFB right? Don't they have a lot of BUFF's (Big ugly fat shaq'fuers or B-52's.) up there? The one thing about North Dakota if the Cold War had ever gone nuclear your state would have been glowing for decades. Have they shut down the MX missile fields up there?

[Tromack]

Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.

In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.

If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.

The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.

I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor

I also feel that North Korea is a very real problem. Again, I'm not against war. I'm also in favor of supporting our military. The problem I have is needlessly starting a war.

[Mookyjooky]

Seriously, do you people really think any one gives a rats ass about what a bunch of cheapassgamers who spend their entire day on this message board think about politics.

I seriously doubt that any of you really understand the situations enough to make a fair contribution to these such discussions.

Quit back seat quarterbacking with issues that you either don't understand or aren't willing to do anything about.

http://home.ntelos.net/~mookyjooky/get_the_fuck_out.jpg

[dennis_t]

Troops in a firefight or in active combat have higher pay rates than those not in the line of fire. Combat pay has always been higher. That has NOT been changed. What has changed is money allocated for raises for stateside troops has been slowed to allow for the increase of troops now receiving combat pay. So a sergeant recruiting in Kansas didn't get as big a raise because a sergeant in Iraq was receiving combat pay.

In addition to that the IRS has combat pay exclusions. Meaning you don't pay taxes on pay earned in combat. So not paying taxes on top of the increased money you'd earn is like a double plus compared to normal pay.

If I didn't make it clear on the flak jackets I'm sorry. Yeah, they could have done better. They could have also outfitted 10,000 M113's and sent them considering we have X hundreds of thousands of them stockpiled all over the place. The fault of the military is still that they prepare to fight the last war.

The level of insurgency wasn't accounted for this far out. The level of insurgency in Iraq is higher than in Afghanistan. Why? I have theories but nothing provable. Let's just say I firmly believe we're going to have to deal with Iran sooner rather than later. Their nuke program is very real.

Thanks for explaining the distinction in combat vs. stateside pay. I'll have to say that in wartime I'd rather ALL of our troops get good pay, but I'm glad that the guys on the front are getting the combat bonus w/o taxes.

Re: the level of insurgency, as far as I know the State Department predicted months before the war that troops would encounter a high and continuing level of resistance, and their research was rejected and ignored by the Bush Administration. Now it seems that research was correct, but I don't see any mea culpas or resignations from the people who pooh-poohed that information.

[ingotheranchhand]

Question...

If you saw an old lady getting robbed/rapped/murdered across the street and had the means and the know-how to stop the perpetrators so that they wouldn't do this again in the future, what would you do?

The Iraqi people were that old lady and the thugs (Saddaum and his merry-men) are gone now. The thugs cannot harrass and kill innocent people anymore. They do not have the opportunity to develop/use WMD in the future.

War has its costs. Unfortonatly the good guys many times pay a high or higher price. But that doesn't change the fact that the good guys were right. What we did in Irag was the right thing to do, even if the right thing isn't always pretty or politiclly correct. Our troops gave their lives to save other. It seems to me that many Americans are selfish in wanting us to stand by and watch the world get torn to bits without even TRYING to do something about it, just so that "our boys" don't get hurt.

Sure the leaders of North Korea and Iran need to be taken out. But you have to start somewhere. We started in Afganistan and then went to Iraq. I sure hope that something is done about North Korea and Iran in the future. The person we elect as president will, more than likely, ultimatley decide if we do that.

With that, I feel like have said enough and more than likely will not post on this thread again. Good luck sorting out your political discussion.

[Quackzilla]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

In afganistan, home of the Taliban, civilian targets were flagged as "primary objectives" and all convoys were considered targets of opportunity, even if they had red crosses and crescents painted on top of the vehicles.

Iraq did not have anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. Again civilian targets were flagged to raise the Iraqi casualty count, which the media never questioned.

Neither did Iran, but Bush is trying to start something with them as we speak. He is trying to START A WAR WITH IRAN.

[Lootr2Core]

Minot AFB right? Don't they have a lot of BUFF's (Big ugly fat shaq'fuers or B-52's.) up there? The one thing about North Dakota if the Cold War had ever gone nuclear your state would have been glowing for decades. Have they shut down the MX missile fields up there?

Grand Forks actually. Minot still has the b-52s GFAFB has kc-111 refuelling wing. ALl the missles are gone now, the last 4 years they demolished them, they are just starting to clean up. There have been these rubble piles years, something in a treaty that had to 'prove' that they were not in use for russian sats to see.

I think at one time if ND seceeded from the union it would have been the 3rd most nuclear armed power in the world.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor

A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.

Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.

If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.

B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.

The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.

If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.

[/quote]

[Lootr2Core]

A good link that I read frequently and use the many links within the site is
http://www.intel-dump.com/

It is pretty thought provoking, balanced, and just generally intesting. He writes many articles on the the 'smaller' stories of the military. It is worth checking out.

[int80h]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.

I win.

[Tromack]

I agree with you on the Iran thing. Which is why the war in Iraq upsets me so much. Iran is a real cause for concern, so what does Bush do? Take over Iraq which:
a) weakens our offensive elsewhere
b) upsets the balance of power in the mideast, tilting it in Iran's favor

A. No, it does not. The military we have is/was still designed to fight two major regional conflicts. Iraq and Afghanistan are still one regional conflict according to doctrine and rightfully so.

Much of our reserve combat capability is still enough to face a North Korea if need be. Which I don't think is going to happen. Kim is dependent on food aid completely. He's still being reeled in by the Chinese which is very key. The historical ties with the Russian's also carry wieght with him. To understand how bad things are the DPRK there are reports from defectors that human body parts are sold for food in parts of the country.

If the DPRK were to decide to wake up and turn South the likely scenario is they wreck the Korean economy for a decade, push 150-200 miles south, surround Seoul and then run out of steam. Then the USAF and the ROK army/air force would systematically destroy them and the DPRK would be overthrown by senior military leadership that would sue for peace.

B. The tilt in Iran's favor is very real from a historical standpoint but not a reality standpoint. You have to assume that we're a non-issue having 150,000 troops in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi government. The current Iraq can't stand on it's own but we're not leaving and we haven't been asked to leave.

The reality is that we're the major power in the Middle East now. We have 4 carrier groups within the region an entire Army group and a marine division and who knows how many air wings. There isn't a standing military in the region that we couldn't topple. That being said Iran may be the largest traditional power but not the largest power. Their influence has been capped.

If they continue to pursue a nuclear program we aren't the most likely threat to take it out. The Israeli's are. They did the same thing to Saddam's Iraq in 1981 when they took out the Osirak reactor, which, incidently was being built by the French.

[/quote]

Well, I still disagree with you on the first point.
And on the second. Yes, the U.S. is the dominant power in the Middle East, but we cannot remain that way for too much longer, let alone indefinitely.

[Lootr2Core]

(an example from intel-dump related a bit to the morale issue.. talks about how in the long run even IF morale is down now...the armed forces will be stronger in the future.)

Bloodied, but better
U.S. Army emerges more combat ready from the crucible of combat in Iraq

The Washington Monthly has posted my new article on the Army, and how it has been affected by the war on terrorism. Clearly, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have stretched the Army. But contrary to conventional wisdom, I think the net effect of these wars may prove to be positive. Metaphorically, it's as if the Army went to the gym to do a hard workout — it's sore right now, and in need of some rest, but the Army has emerged from these wars stronger than when it began. Here's a brief excerpt from the story, available on the TWM website:

Since September 11, the U.S. military has expended an enormous amount of spirit, blood, and treasure on battlefields halfway around the world. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 979 of our soldiers have been killed; and another 5,600 wounded. More than a quarter of a million young men and women have been exposed to the horrors of combat. The abuses at Abu Ghraib have damaged America's moral credibility, and that of our armed forces, around the world, hampering our ability to win hearts and minds in the war on terrorism. The Bush administration's foreign policy decisions have been expensive both in dollars--$149 billion in taxpayer money to date, with billions more yet to be spent--and in material, having all but depleted the Pentagon's stocks of pre-positioned vehicles, equipment, and ordnance. Our enormous commitment of resources to Iraq has emboldened our enemies, including North Korea, and has forced us to neglect other crisis spots such as Haiti and the Sudan. And it has pushed American soldiers to the breaking point. Even when our commitment in Iraq ends, it will be several years before our forces have recovered enough to take on a military venture of similar size.

But the stresses of war--and in particular the aftermath of defeat or failure--have historically spurred the most profound and lasting revolutions in military affairs. During World War II, Gen. George Patton used the Army's trouncing at the Kasserine Pass as an excuse to whip our poorly-disciplined, poorly-trained, and poorly-led forces into shape. Out of the ashes of defeat in Vietnam, a cadre of officers, including Colin Powell and Anthony Zinni, turned a dispirited draft force into a volunteer body that became the most powerful military the world had ever seen. And only after the debacle of Desert One--the failed 1980 Delta Force raid to rescue American hostages from Iran--did the military get serious about special operations and joint warfare.

Today, the pattern appears set to repeat itself. Though we don't yet know whether historians will judge the second Gulf War to have been a victory or a defeat--America decisively won the battle of tanks and artillery, but has yet to win the peace--the searing experience of Iraq is already inspiring the U.S. military to reshape itself for the better.

One area of combat-related development deserves special

[Lootr2Core]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.

I win.

I have played Civ 3 for mange years now..haven't played AoE which has the better diplomacy?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're free to disagree, it's actually a capability and debating point I wouldn't want to see happen because hundreds of thousands would die, be wounded or homeless to prove us right or wrong.

On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.

[E-Z-B]

Bush says he wants to be a "Peace President" now.

Wasn't he boasting about being a "War President" just a few months ago???

Hmmmm.......sounds like a........ FLIP-FLOP to me!

[ZForce915]

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

My credentials: I play Age of Empires at least once a week.

I win.

Your very first post and about the only thing worth reading in this thread. You should be proud! Way to go newbie!

[Quackzilla]

You're free to disagree, it's actually a capability and debating point I wouldn't want to see happen because hundreds of thousands would die, be wounded or homeless to prove us right or wrong.

On the second point? Can't remain that way for much longer? We maintained hundreds of thousands of troops in Germany for 50 years. That base of operations was just moved east and south.

www.goarmy.com/

Prove it.

If you beleive in these wars so much than prove it by joining the army.

10 out of 10 war mongers back down or start flinging insulsts when asked this.

If the war is so just that you would have your fellow countrymen sacrifice everything than why don't you follow them?

And don't use the "family", "job", or "priorities" excuse. According to you the war is a top priority.

[mcwilliams132]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

[MrBadExample]

I would have preferred that he excuse himself and go start talking to his cabinet members to formulate a plan of action rather than sit there for seven minutes waiting for Dick Cheney to tell him what to do.

[Lootr2Core]

Hey, It might have been a good book. Besides did you read the sign behind him.. "Reading makes a country great!'

[dennis_t]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.

And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

[Pylis]

Actually, Mcwilliams DID make a valid point. You just took the irrelevant "firey death" part of it and then dismissed everything else he said.

I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.

[gkargreen]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war.

Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!

The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I think it's funny to come back to a thread and see responses that prove the people posting replies to your messages have not read everything you've written and like to jump on one sentence or paragraph in an attempt to make themselves look like they've "won" and proven someone else wrong.

Prove it.

If you beleive in these wars so much than prove it by joining the army.

10 out of 10 war mongers back down or start flinging insulsts when asked this.

Since you missed it.... HERE (http://cheapassgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23709&postdays=0&postorder=asc&sta rt=20) I'll post it for you again.

What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?

I did 4 years reserves and 4 years active duty. What were you saying? I probably had a hand in training about a quarter of tank commanders on active duty. That percentage drops every year.

So Quackzilla, what are your qualifications?

[mcwilliams132]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.

And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....

Hindsight baby!

I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.

And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.

[mcwilliams132]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war.

Yeah, you're right. The CIA trained 19 people to take over 4 planes, crash 2 into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and another into the Capital building. Bush funded it, Dick Cheney trained them, Condi Rice handled the financials, Donald Rumsfeld let them use Air Force planes for flight training and they were all let through security with passes from the FAA. Oh, and the Jews were told to stay home from work on 9/11 because we didn't want to offend the Israeli's.

I can't wait until 11PM 11/2/04 when the returns have Bush winning. I am going to love the reactions from you people.

Now that's the kind of response I would have expected, all hot air and no substance!

The reason for attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, that was just a ruse. War is generally good to move an economy, and Bush needed to do something to get the economy on track, even if it wasn't quite kosher. Also, it made sense as a means to "fix" his father's mess that he left, even though Bush senior said "don't do it!" And lastly, but most importantly, Wolfowitz WANTED to attack Iraq right from the get go, he is a big supporter of Israel, and after what Iraq did to Israel, he wanted payback! BTW, can you answer why we so support Israel when it is NOT in our best interest? Also, this does make a difference, I will vote, and I do understand both politics and quantum physics, ha ha...

"Why we support Israel?"

You have to ask that question?

They are the only democracy in the middle east.

The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.

That's why we defend Israel.

[Quackzilla]

You served Clinton, he didn't put any troops on the ground besides Socom units.

You never got shot at.
What I meant is would you be wiling to go into Iraq and fight and die even though there is no reason for you to be there.

I am not a soldier, I have no military experience.

I will not join an army that is fighting a war I don't beleive in. I will not serve Bush, I will not attack civilians, and I will not guard stolen oil.

I would only join if the fate of the free world depended on the outcome of the war, like in WW2, which is not the case in Iraq.

[dennis_t]

He also wanted to be the Education President. That didn't turn out too well either.

Bush is so big on education that he will continue to read children's books while our country is being attacked.
http://s89194761.onlinehome.us/mypetgoat.jpg

What would you have done?

Stand up, freak out, and run out of the place?

What more could have been done at that very moment? He didn't want to alarm the children or others around him.

Are you really believing the bulldada you are spilling? Are you saying he couldn't have calmly stood up, said, "Excuse me, but I have some urgent business," and walked out of the room? Do you really think
such action would have alarmed the children, who at that moment didn't know their country was under attack?

What more could have been done at that moment? With two other planes still flying around, one headed to the Pentagon and the other headed God knows where, don't you think it would have been great to have our President at the helm? Taking charge, ordering action, asking questions, projecting calm? Was our country best served by him sitting in that classroom during those seven minutes?

More to the point: What would your reaction be if Clinton had sat there for seven minutes reading a children's book? Would you be praising his calm under fire, or deriding him for being weak and ineffectual at a time the country needed decisiveness

There was absolutly NOTHING that chould have been done at that time. Remember; hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20...

There are plenty of people that can make disisions...There's no way we could have scrambled jet fighters in time...remember the FAA didn't know what the hell was going on till it was too late.

Give me a break...you probably think it would have been better for Bush to run out, get in front of the plane and take the collision himself.

No president could have done any bettter...

I love the way you take a reasoned argument and subvert it into an alleged fevered desire that Bush die in a fiery crash. Rather than admit Bush froze like a deer in the headlights, you try to play the "Bush-hater" card as cover. That doesn't say much for the strength of your argument.

And again, I ask you to look into your heart of hearts and consider what you would be saying about Clinton had he been the guy reading a children's book for seven minutes while our country was in the midst of the worst domestic attack ever. I suspect it would not be, "No president could have done any better...." I suspect you'd be calling for impeachment because he was derelict in his duty as Commander-in-Chief.

I'm just trying to make another absurd argument just like you think something could have been done in those 7 min. WHAT THE HELL ELSE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE...the only logical answer is NOTHING. What would those 7min gain? that's right Nothing. "but..he could have talked to his cabinet members..." but what would have been accomplished...again the answer is NOTHING....

Hindsight baby!

I dont' care who would have been sitting there...NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

We did however, stomp all over the Taliban, topple over Saddam, and warn the world that we aren't going to take this crap any longer and you better watch out if you dare harbor or support terrorists. There is no negotiating with terrorists, there is no appeasment. We must systematically take them out.

And don't give me this politically correct crap about the UN; We (the US) estabished the UN, fund the UN, and we can dismantle it. We are the lone super power on this planet and someone has to take a stand.

I don't think it's absurd to expect immediate action from the President when our nation is under attack. In fact, I think it's more absurd to hide behind those children and say he didn't want to scare them. Since when does the presence of a classroom of children hamper the President's ability to react quickly?

As far as what he could have done -- VP Dick Cheney ended up being the person giving the go-ahead to shoot down any passenger aircraft that approached Washington without authorization. It was an illegal order, since Cheney is not the Commander-in-Chief and has no standing in the military, but guess what -- Bush wasn't available at the time. Maybe if he'd calmly hustled out of that classroom 7 minutes earlier, our air forces would have actually been getting orders from the person authorized to hand them down.

One last point: No Appeasement? Do a little bit of reading about how we're handling North Korea. Bush is appeasing Kim Jong Il at every turn. He's caved completely there because his tough-guy rhetoric impressed no one, and North Korea continued with its nuclear arms program.

And a quick news flash: toppling Saddam did nothing to help in the War on Terror, because he was not collaborating with any terrorists. There are any number of government investigations that now agree on that point. In fact, they've proven that al-Queda asked Saddam for help and he basically ignored them.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Think about this in terms you can understand. 8 years of service.... out in 1996 that would put me in uniform in 1988. What happened in 1990-91? Hmmmm? Anybody? Anybody? Where do you think crew commanders got combat experience to train future combat crews. BUELLER? BUELLER?

I never "served" a President. The only members of the armed services that do are Navy Stewards when they bring him his meals. I served under the NCA of both Presidents Bush and Clinton.

Now, when we did the infamous "left hook" that drove us hundreds of miles into Iraq, cutting off the Kuwaiti occupation forces from resupply and systematically destroyed remaining armor we were never shot at? On the morning of February 26th 1991 we encountered the Tawakalna Division of the Republican Guard and kindly asked them to exit their vehicles so we could have target practice?

You're right.... nothing meaningful. Never shot at. You can thank God for an all volunteer army that allows you to sit on your ass and criticize anything without consequence while sitting in front of your computer, in your air conditioned home and well stocked refrigerator. You're welcome, I was happy to sit in an overpressured hull of Chobham armor firing depleted uranium shells at an enemy that according to you "never shot back".

Keep digging, that hole will be up to your neck soon and some other nice poster will come along, throw you in your hole and bury you.

[Quackzilla]

The muslim world wants NOTHING MORE than Israel's TOTAL AND COMPLETE ANIALATION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANNET. They (muslim's and isreal's surrounding neighborys) don't want peace (no matter what agreements they make or sign)...never have wanted peace and never will have it.

That's why we defend Israel.

Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.

The people you are basing your stereotype on are "religious fanatics". Crazy people. Christians have them also, just look at Jerry Falwell. And don't forget Jewish fundamentalists, they are the main roadblock on the road to peace in the middle east.

---------------
Examples of Fundamentalism
---------------

A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle.

Jewish fundamentalists bulldoze civilian neighborhoods in Palestine out of pure hatred for Muslims.

Muslim fundamentalists flew planes into the Twin Towers, because their leader, Osama bin Ladin, had indoctrinated them.
====================

As you can see, fundamentalists are very stupid people, and thankfully there are not a lot of them, their actions just tend to speak louder than the words of normal people.



Our defense of Israel is wrong and has effectively stopped any progress towards peace and has forced Palestinial "soldiers" to resort to guerilla warefare because they can't fight back against American tanks and helicopters.

[Quackzilla]

PittsburgAfterDark:

I concede, you win.

I forgot the timeline because I wasn't paying attention.

[dennis_t]

Actually, Mcwilliams DID make a valid point. You just took the irrelevant "firey death" part of it and then dismissed everything else he said.

I agree that Bush did the right thing. Quietly dismissing himself may have been a better option, but in all honesty nothing could be done, and I still think that he did some good here. Oh, and it's not an argument to assume that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing. I don't like Clinton, and I don't think he's an honest man., but I'd still commend him if he did the same thing as Bush.

Well, Pylis, I think that emotional arguments like that should be countered. They are meant to make a point by appealing to something other than reason, and thus are a cheap tactic.

And I absolutely believe it's an argument that anybody pro-Bush would hate Clinton for doing the same thing, because that goes to the hypocrisy of it all. Clinton struck at al Qaeda during his presidency, and conservatives dismissed it as a "wag-the-dog" maneuver to distract from Whitewater. Would the same criticisms have happened if Bush had been in the same position?

And lastly, I will never agree that inaction for seven minutes during a national crisis is the right thing to do for our President and Commander in Chief. He was a deer caught in the headlights, and you can't accept that. You need to come up with some rationale to explain away the fact that he completely blanked when faced with a true emergency.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...

[mcwilliams132]

Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.

Chapter and verse...

Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?

give me a break...

[Dragonlordfrodo]

"A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle"

Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...

[PittsburghAfterDark]

DennisT, 9/11 was a SNAFU. It wasn't in anybody's playbook. When we would wargame with imaginary forces at Carilsle many moves or tactics would be disallowed as "unrealisitic" that were similar to the reality of that date.

The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.

Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.

Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.

Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.

Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.

You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.

GO! The clock is ticking....

[Quackzilla]

I am also tired of hearing crap about "This was a splinter group" and "The whole country is not responsible". It is like saying not all nazis are bad people...

Are you serious?

You just accused every Muslim in the world of being a terrorist!

Thats like saying because a black person robbed a bank last week all black people are bank robbers!


This whole "Guilty until proven innocent then they are still guilty" system is very flawed.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Are all nazis good people? Now shut up...

[Quackzilla]

Are all nazis good people? Now shut up...

Most Nazis were just soldiers doing their job. All they knew was what their commanding officers told them.

Many of them were the dirtiest bastards you could imagine, though.

[MrBadExample]

"A Christian fundamentalist (right to lifer) sent anthrax to the office of Senator Tom Daschle"

Not true. We don't know who is the Anthrax mailer...

Okay, who let the troll in?

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Most Nazis were just soldiers doing their job. All they knew was what their commanding officers told them.

Many of them were the dirtiest bastards you could imagine, though.

Most Nazi's weren't soldiers. Very few German soldiers were actually Nazi's. The Waffen SS held the majority of them. The ordinary soldier in the Wehrmacht or Luftwaffe were just soliders, not Nazis.

In a historical sense many nations "less desireable" element joined the army or navy to escape something, usually criminal. Soldiering up until the 20th Century was full of the dregs of society outside the officer corps. This being said its been easy for some armies to get their men to commit attrocities.

[Quackzilla]

I had assumed he was using the generalization that all Germans were Nazis because in his previous, and somewhat racist, comments he seemed to come across as being a little "dense".

In reality, everyone who knew what the Nazi party stood for and still called themselves Nazis were bad people.

[gkargreen]

Israel was formed from Palestine as the result of an agreement between the British govt. and the Jewish bankers that wanted a homeland, this was circa 1916, when England ran out of money to continue WWI and needed to borrow money from the bankers to continue the war. THIS was how Israel was formed. Now to say that Israel is a Democracy shows a lack of education, most of the people that live in Israel are not allowed to vote or hold office, that's right, most of the people in Israel are the native people, Palestinians! So, of course Israel is not and cannot be a democracy, because it then would not be a Zionist nation, but once again it would be a Muslim nation due to majority rule. Israel is a bastard nation (i.e., not formed from the majority) formed from backdoor deals with the rich and powerful as a homeland for Jews. Most did not go there until after the Holocaust since it was a pretty crappy place to live at the time. Since the US, as well as the traditional Middle eastern occupying countries (france and england) also supported Israel, and since those three countries (us, england and france) have consistently screwed over the muslims in the middle east since before WW1, there is no wonder the muslims hate them and us. After all, would you allow a bastard govt to just come in an bulldoze your house and throw you and your family into a refugee camp just so their kind could have your family property? Not in this country! Just try that in the US and see how far you would get! BTW, I take issue with the fact that soldiers of the Werhmacht were not members of the Nazi party, I know that the Kriegsmarine absolutely were as was Schindler, so, not all Nazis were bad, but those that were held the levers of power and tried to screw us all!

[dennis_t]

DennisT, 9/11 was a SNAFU. It wasn't in anybody's playbook. When we would wargame with imaginary forces at Carilsle many moves or tactics would be disallowed as "unrealisitic" that were similar to the reality of that date.

The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.

Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.

Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.

Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.

Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.

You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.

GO! The clock is ticking....

Let me provide you an alternate scenario:

I'm in a classroom for a photo op. I already know one tower of the World Trade Center is burning, the result of a plane crash. An aide steps in and whispers to me that a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, something that means a coordinated attack on the country I run is underway.

As President, do I:

(1) Immediately leave the room to find out what the heck is going on, regardless of whether I will make any difference in the moments that follow; or

(2) Sit still, play with a book, and look about the classroom for seven minutes?

As a man of action, a military man, which choice would you make?

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?

[E-Z-B]

After all, would you allow a bastard govt to just come in an bulldoze your house and throw you and your family into a refugee camp just so their kind could have your family property? Not in this country! Just try that in the US and see how far you would get!

It DID happen in this country. The Native Americans lost almost all their land to the British, Spanish, etc governments.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Check out my new avatar? Like it? It's new!

[E-Z-B]

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?

And how about how Bush is preaching about "family values"? Nothing like having an AK-47 in your home to show "family values". That's because he's letting the ban on assault weapons run out this year. So this is how he's committed to fighting terrorism. Sounds like another FLIP-FLOP to me.

[Lootr2Core]

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?

whoa there, now I would label myself fairly liberal in my politics but I don't think that event really shows the character of Bush in a national crisis. Bush had huge approval ratings the few months after 9-11 from both left and right, While I will vote for Kerry because of a number of reasons I don't wan't to belittle what Bush did the days, weeks and month(s) after 9-11. There was a lot of fear in the nation (while I didn't feel it, I met many people who were terrified of the next attack and these were people that live in 'non target rich' environments of North Dakota and Rural manitoba. Bush did a good job in helping to give confidence amidst turmoil and chaos. Could he have done things differently, sure---could his actions in the year after 9-11 been more beneficial to the country (well In my mind yes but you may disagree) but there was like 90% approval in Sept-nov of that year. Of all the things to judge someone's character this really doesn't seem to be the indicator.

Sum up---I disagree with alot of Bush's politics, will vote Straight ticket democrat this election (Congresman, Pres, Gov) but will give 'props' to Bush in his character during the 9-11 times.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

When you vote Democrat, you are only getting a Demo

[strayfoxx]

Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war. But, I don't think we're being critical of that Bush war. The second one was a bit more of a downright stupid decision, and is a bit harder to link with a "peace president."

Dubya Caption - "Got to concentrate... Country under attack... Huh? The third little piggy said WHAT?"

^I can't remember exactly what book he was reading, but I imagine there are lots of third little piggies spread across the literary world.

You're an idiot. Disassociating the terrorists who flew three bombs into the WTC and saying the 3,000 dead were his fault. What you don't think Clinton is to blame as much as Bush is? Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden two times. I for one dont want to play the blame game with people like you because you are always going to believe that it was all Bushs fault, just like all hardcore Republicans will believe it was all Clintons fault.

The 9/11 commission that you liberals love to quote so much released findings that Bush could have done something about the 9/11 attacks six times, while Clinton could have 4 times. And considering their partisan sensibilities towards the Democratic side of the spectrum obviously both are as much to blame as each other.

Idiots like you get me angry. THE FUCKING TERRORISTS FLEW A PLANE INTO THE WTC, and youre saying the 3,000 dead are HIS FAULT.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You can't make a decision, you can't act or throw things into motion on an uncertainty. In the case of 9/11 the FAA and the 11 air traffic control centers in the nation were completely confused and indecisive. If you can't get good information going upstream you can't get a good decision coming back down the chain of command. It's that simple. NORAD was alerted to multiple hijackings but had no playbook for this. By the time of the Pennsylvania crash jets were scrambled but to go where? To hit what?

People I knew coming in from overseas were told to land wherever. My GF at the time was forced to land in Gander, Newfoundland under threat of shootdown. The best thing to happen that day and there was good that came out of it, is that the entire U.S. commercial aviation fleet was brought to a screeching halt and grounded without incident. There were no crashes, no accidents, no collisions because pilots were making hasty decisions to get in line and land before threat of shootdown.

Then Bush was on AF One circling the nation which is where the President should have been. In an unknown emergency it is policy to get the NCA airborne under fighter protection. Why go to the White House? Why risk an attack? You question these 7 minutes when President Bush defied the Secret Service and key military aides and returned to the White House that evening to address the nation. That was decisive and frankly, inadvisable. Why let an enemy know where key assets are at exact moments in time in a day full of attacks?

You think he should have been doing something... anything to which I reply what should he have done. You answer has been repeated, anything. I don't see what him getting up and leaving 7 minutes early would have changed.

During a combat situation you're working with less than 5 seconds sometimes to make decisions. Typically the training sceanarios you work under are more difficult than combat. That's by design. That way in the "fog of war" you are more apt to make a better decision. Unfortunately 9/11 was never trained for and never expected. That being said it's impossible to judge fairly, in hindsight, how what was done was right or wrong.

I can tell you what Clinton did in response to the first WTC bombing. He treated it as a legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the Khobar Towers bombing, as an internal Saudi legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the USS Cole bombing, he blew up the aspirin factory in the Sudan. I can tell you how Clinton treated the massacre of American soldiers in Somalia, he denied them heavy armor and then cut and run. Now.. which set a more dangerous national precident in regards to how our enemies perceive us? What I just listed..... or 7 minutes thinking "What the hell is going on, what can people tell me and how are we going to react?"

Go ahead. I'm all ears.

[Lootr2Core]

When you vote Democrat, you are only getting a Demo

Although in your mind you probably thought that was a great slam, its actually a nice compliment.

Demo: Noun 1. demo - a visual presentation showing how something works;


So when you vote Democrfat you are getting something that shows you how things can work? Hey thanks for the compliment Dragon,....

Edit: Verb: make understandable and clear

[Dragonlordfrodo]

They think the muslim world hates us because we keep the saudi arabian government in power.

Let me give you some advice. DON'T DRIVE! Everytime you fill up your big honking 3 miles per gallon SUV YOU ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISM, and thus keeping the Iraqi and Saudi government in power. Also you shouldn't drive if you think Iraq is all about oil.

[Dragonlordfrodo]

Democrats are Girlie Men - Arnold Schwarzenegger

[E-Z-B]

If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You're right, you're right.

I would've finished my photo op too. Then, I would've gone for some coffee and a bagel, followed by my reading of the Washington Post. Then, after playing some Mario Kart, I would've gone and taken a nice healthy dump before really getting my hands into this whole plane-crashing-into-the-world-trade-center-tower incident.

Riiiiiiiight. :roll:

[PittsburghAfterDark]

See, no serious answer is even attempted. Just a smart ass comment designed to make it look like what was done was the wrong thing without any submission as to what the right thing to do is. Your answer forwarded this discussion in no measureable way and we're all dumber having read it.

[Rayonic]

Bush is a warmonger?

Afghanistan was clearly justified. Nobody can argue that.

Iraq was a continuation of U.S. policy toward that country. You don't thumb your nose at a cease-fire agreement for 12 years and get away with it.

[gkargreen]

Actually, when you assume that Bush had 7 minutes, that is 20/20 hindsight. He/we didn't know what was happening, how many planes were ging to be used, other forms of attack that may have been planned, we DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING! So, Bush should have gotten immediately into action form, because nobody knew what was going to happen at that time. Sorry, Bush froze, and everyone knows it, it's plain on his face.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Technically in the matter of the decision to get the President up and moving anywhere/somewhere/airborne was under the purview of the Secret Service. If there was an attempt made on a Pesidential assination or a danger that it could happen it was up to them to get Bush moving. They concluded at the time there was no immediate danger to the President's life or he would have been up and moving.

If his had been Al Gore I would maintain the same thing. I don't know what you could expect any President to do with the complete lack of information or immediate nearby personal attack. I think in hindsight what could have been done different and the answer comes back to I don't know. I think back to that morning and as I saw the wrecks and burnign buildings I just kept wondering "What else.".

I remember filling up my car, filling 3 5 gallon containers with water, buying enough groceries for a month and just waiting to see what happened next. Oh, and I loaded up a couple of guns in case of civil unrest. I think people forget and have let memories of the fog of that day slip through their minds. Why? I think because nothing has happened here since everyone views it as an anomoly as opposed to something our enemies wish would hapen to us daily.

[dennis_t]

If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You can't make a decision, you can't act or throw things into motion on an uncertainty. In the case of 9/11 the FAA and the 11 air traffic control centers in the nation were completely confused and indecisive. If you can't get good information going upstream you can't get a good decision coming back down the chain of command. It's that simple. NORAD was alerted to multiple hijackings but had no playbook for this. By the time of the Pennsylvania crash jets were scrambled but to go where? To hit what?

People I knew coming in from overseas were told to land wherever. My GF at the time was forced to land in Gander, Newfoundland under threat of shootdown. The best thing to happen that day and there was good that came out of it, is that the entire U.S. commercial aviation fleet was brought to a screeching halt and grounded without incident. There were no crashes, no accidents, no collisions because pilots were making hasty decisions to get in line and land before threat of shootdown.

Then Bush was on AF One circling the nation which is where the President should have been. In an unknown emergency it is policy to get the NCA airborne under fighter protection. Why go to the White House? Why risk an attack? You question these 7 minutes when President Bush defied the Secret Service and key military aides and returned to the White House that evening to address the nation. That was decisive and frankly, inadvisable. Why let an enemy know where key assets are at exact moments in time in a day full of attacks?

You think he should have been doing something... anything to which I reply what should he have done. You answer has been repeated, anything. I don't see what him getting up and leaving 7 minutes early would have changed.

During a combat situation you're working with less than 5 seconds sometimes to make decisions. Typically the training sceanarios you work under are more difficult than combat. That's by design. That way in the "fog of war" you are more apt to make a better decision. Unfortunately 9/11 was never trained for and never expected. That being said it's impossible to judge fairly, in hindsight, how what was done was right or wrong.

I can tell you what Clinton did in response to the first WTC bombing. He treated it as a legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the Khobar Towers bombing, as an internal Saudi legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the USS Cole bombing, he blew up the aspirin factory in the Sudan. I can tell you how Clinton treated the massacre of American soldiers in Somalia, he denied them heavy armor and then cut and run. Now.. which set a more dangerous national precident in regards to how our enemies perceive us? What I just listed..... or 7 minutes thinking "What the hell is going on, what can people tell me and how are we going to react?"

Go ahead. I'm all ears.

I think just sitting there, looking stunned, sets a much more dangerous national precedent. I'm sure the terrorists watch those seven minutes of tape and laugh their butts off, tickled that they were able to derail the thinking and decision-making capability of the leader of the most powerful country in the world through their evil, audacious actions.

Standing up, politely excusing himself and getting IMMEDIATELY into the fray would have sent a much more powerful message to the terrorists and the world. Bush was incapable of doing that.

[gkargreen]

I agree, he inadvertently sent a message to those who perpetrated the crimes that he did not know what to do. And that was probably true, given the circumstances. Heck, I saw the Pentagon 1 minute after the hit, I was on my way to work right as this was happening! But, as we all know, appearances are important, and Bush should have gotten up and presented the appearance of knowing something, even though he/we really did not know much at all. BTW, your right, it did happen here when we committed genocide on the Indians, we screwed them every way possible, as much as the Nazis did to the Jews (well, may be not quite that badm the Holocaust was an unbelievable thing to do...) Now, as the Indians are starting to get back at us by using our gambling affliction to make money, we are trying to stop that, can't let the Indians make money off of us when we can let big corps or govts, do it to us instead!

[PittsburghAfterDark]

You're still ignoring the fact that he knew nothing. There were no civillian officialls telling him of organized attack on the nation, just on one target, the WTC. That target had been attacked before in 1993 in a less direct method. You didn't have generals telling him of an immediate threat either.

You answer is still ANYTHIING without being specific. I maintain that no President could have done any better. I'm not even m