Contrasts in Policy

Dixie said:
Again... We followed the precise template of those who decried our policy in Iraq. The detractors said we should have supported rebel forces inside Iraq and let them deal with the situation on their own. That's what we did in Libya. They claimed our efforts to install democracy in Iraq would fail, and most predicted civil war within a year. Didn't happen. The wonderful and glorious Arab Spring was supposed to be our "lesson" of how to do it, let "the people" rise up and naturally establish their own solutions to the overthrown dictatorship, and it has been a disaster. We have perfect examples of the two policies, the Bush Doctrine in Iraq, and the Anti-Bush Doctrine in Libya... one has worked fairly well, the other is an unmitigated failure.

I see what you are trying to argue, that in BOTH cases, we should have simply turned our backs and ignored it all, but the problem with that idea is, you end up with millions of dead people in mass graves, then eventually, you have to send in the military to defeat an almost unstoppable enemy, ala: Normandy.
Click to expand...

Since the 'assistance' or whatever you like to call it was started by Italy, France and Britain and subsequently America, why do you think they attacked your embassy and not one of the others?
Could it be that they don't like any of us but that they don't like you more?
Well, if your barking mad (becoming something of a cliche) man gets into the Whitehouse, you can try the same strategy against the world and this time, make notes. You may just stumble upon the answer.
BTW how can you get all excited over what you say is a single Obama lie yet listen in total rapture to lie upon proven lie from your man in the magic underpants and still want to vote for him?
 
Rune said:
No you flipping idiot, it did collapse within a year, which is why we are still there ten years and 3 trillion dollars later. There is no free-standing democracy in Iraq. Stop lying to yourself at least.
Click to expand...

But Obama says we came home, we followed Bush's timeline and now there are no combat troops in Iraq. I think you are mistaking Iraq for Afghanistan. There, we didn't follow the Bush Doctrine of establishing democracy, because the naysayers had taken hold and hooted down the idea, and we tried overthrowing the regime then letting the chips fall where they may, after installing a makeshift leader. Just like we're seeing in Libya, that doesn't work, the people have no idea how to set up a democracy and make it work. In the case of Libya, it's even worse, because we didn't install anything. So, a "half-and-half" policy doesn't really work either, we know that now.
 
Dixie said:
But Obama says we came home, we followed Bush's timeline and now there are no combat troops in Iraq. I think you are mistaking Iraq for Afghanistan. There, we didn't follow the Bush Doctrine of establishing democracy, because the naysayers had taken hold and hooted down the idea, and we tried overthrowing the regime then letting the chips fall where they may, after installing a makeshift leader. Just like we're seeing in Libya, that doesn't work, the people have no idea how to set up a democracy and make it work. In the case of Libya, it's even worse, because we didn't install anything. So, a "half-and-half" policy doesn't really work either, we know that now.
Click to expand...

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/0907/Iraq-withdrawal-How-many-US-troops-will-remain
 
Lowaicue said:
Since the 'assistance' or whatever you like to call it was started by Italy, France and Britain and subsequently America, why do you think they attacked your embassy and not one of the others?
Could it be that they don't like any of us but that they don't like you more?
Well, if your barking mad (becoming something of a cliche) man gets into the Whitehouse, you can try the same strategy against the world and this time, make notes. You may just stumble upon the answer.
BTW how can you get all excited over what you say is a single Obama lie yet listen in total rapture to lie upon proven lie from your man in the magic underpants and still want to vote for him?
Click to expand...

Well the people of Libya didn't attack our consulate. It was a radical Islamic terror unit, the kind that Obama claimed wasn't a threat anymore, and couldn't launch such attacks. They are crawling all over Libya because of our passive policy, which liberals and anti-Bush anti-war people claimed was the best approach to take. You see, we have two examples, three if you want to include Afghanistan... In Iraq, we have the Bush Doctrine of establishing democracy, patiently sticking with it until the people are able to hold fair elections, pick a representative government, form a constitution and train a military for security. In Libya, we have the exact opposite policies of the naysayers, the people who argued the policy in Iraq was the totally wrong thing to do, and how we did things in Libya was supposed to be how it was done. That has resulted in the country overrun by terrorist groups and utter chaos. In Afghanistan, we cobbled together a kind of "meet in the middle" hodgepodge, of Bush Doctrine AND Anti-Bush Doctrine, installed a puppet ruler, and let them try to figure it out... that didn't work either. The only thing that actually worked, was what Bush did in Iraq.

Yet the naysayers are still running around moaning that Bush failed in Iraq and it was the wrong thing to do... Iraq is the only reasonably stable country over there now! In far better shape than Libya or Afghanistan, where the naysayers had their way and implemented what they thought was the correct policies.
 
Dixie said:
Well the people of Libya didn't attack our consulate. It was a radical Islamic terror unit, the kind that Obama claimed wasn't a threat anymore, and couldn't launch such attacks. They are crawling all over Libya because of our passive policy, which liberals and anti-Bush anti-war people claimed was the best approach to take. You see, we have two examples, three if you want to include Afghanistan... In Iraq, we have the Bush Doctrine of establishing democracy, patiently sticking with it until the people are able to hold fair elections, pick a representative government, form a constitution and train a military for security. In Libya, we have the exact opposite policies of the naysayers, the people who argued the policy in Iraq was the totally wrong thing to do, and how we did things in Libya was supposed to be how it was done. That has resulted in the country overrun by terrorist groups and utter chaos. In Afghanistan, we cobbled together a kind of "meet in the middle" hodgepodge, of Bush Doctrine AND Anti-Bush Doctrine, installed a puppet ruler, and let them try to figure it out... that didn't work either. The only thing that actually worked, was what Bush did in Iraq.

Yet the naysayers are still running around moaning that Bush failed in Iraq and it was the wrong thing to do... Iraq is the only reasonably stable country over there now! In far better shape than Libya or Afghanistan, where the naysayers had their way and implemented what they thought was the correct policies.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference who attacked your consulate. They did not attack ours!And when you were giving millions to the terrorists of N. Ireland you were calling them freedom fighters. The people who attacked you were someone's freedom fighters. And they see the US as taking away what they want.
It doesn't matter who is over running what. Your time to worry is when they over run you and not until.
Do pleeeeaase try to understand that you are NOT the world's police force. You have almost nothing to offer. Your only chance is to continue with the policies of the present regime which, as far as foreign relations are concerned, are being successful - although I am sure that from your hole in Ally Bama or whever you are, it doesn't look that way.
 
Bottom line is, over the years, we've repeatedly attempted your way. We've got a long storied tradition of being 'isolationists' and not entangling ourselves in the affairs of other countries. Unlike the Great British Empire, we didn't try to establish colonies in Africa and India, we've not attempted to that anywhere in the world. We reluctantly joined WWI after years of turmoil we were uninvolved in, and it took a direct attack on Pearl Harbor to get us involved in WWII. Continued Communist aggression drew us into wars in Korea and Vietnam, where we really didn't want to be involved either. And in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it was the attacks on 9/11 which prompted us to go after Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. We're just not an aggressive nation, and never have been.

What we've seen repeatedly, over and over again throughout history, is that our passive non-aggressive approach, hasn't always been best for us in the end. Keeping our noses out of it and minding our own business, ends up getting a whole lot of our people killed, either innocent people who are attacked ruthlessly by our enemies, or soldiers who eventually are called to fight overpowering forces the rest of the world can't fight on their own. The ONE tool we have, the ONE thing that has consistently proven successful for us, is to show people how to form a democratic style government and live in peace.
 
Dixie said:
Bottom line is, over the years, we've repeatedly attempted your way. We've got a long storied tradition of being 'isolationists' and not entangling ourselves in the affairs of other countries. Unlike the Great British Empire, we didn't try to establish colonies in Africa and India, we've not attempted to that anywhere in the world. We reluctantly joined WWI after years of turmoil we were uninvolved in, and it took a direct attack on Pearl Harbor to get us involved in WWII. Continued Communist aggression drew us into wars in Korea and Vietnam, where we really didn't want to be involved either. And in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, it was the attacks on 9/11 which prompted us to go after Islamic terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. We're just not an aggressive nation, and never have been.

What we've seen repeatedly, over and over again throughout history, is that our passive non-aggressive approach, hasn't always been best for us in the end. Keeping our noses out of it and minding our own business, ends up getting a whole lot of our people killed, either innocent people who are attacked ruthlessly by our enemies, or soldiers who eventually are called to fight overpowering forces the rest of the world can't fight on their own. The ONE tool we have, the ONE thing that has consistently proven successful for us, is to show people how to form a democratic style government and live in peace.
Click to expand...

How was Iraq involved in 9/11?

Your last sentence shows the depth of ignorance you inhabit. You DO NOT have a form of democracy that MOST countries wish to emulate. You most certainly DO NOT live in peace. You are some of the most violent minded people in one of the biggest agressor nations in the world. I don't understand how you can believe what you say here, Dixie. I know that cattle country, god country has a culture of protecting stock and relying on a god and guns whereas farming country traditionally spawns centres of population which leads to urban deveopment, large cities and education, but those things are changing. Are you and your like determined not to move with the times? Are you so sure that the old ways were the best?
I dont know how old you are, Dixie, but I would guess you are younger than me. If I can see the benefits of modernity why the hell can't you?
Now, before you say any more on the subject of democracy and peace, please go to your local library and READ for chrissakes!Read about democracy. Read about what the world thinks of you. Read how you are no longer top dog. Read how Alabama is not the world in microcosm.
Like the other loonies here you can, if you wish, simply say 'fuck the rest of the world', but I don't think you are quite that stupid.
 
Lowaicue said:
How was Iraq involved in 9/11?

Your last sentence shows the depth of ignorance you inhabit. You DO NOT have a form of democracy that MOST countries wish to emulate. You most certainly DO NOT live in peace. You are some of the most violent minded people in one of the biggest agressor nations in the world. I don't understand how you can believe what you say here, Dixie. I know that cattle country, god country has a culture of protecting stock and relying on a god and guns whereas farming country traditionally spawns centres of population which leads to urban deveopment, large cities and education, but those things are changing. Are you and your like determined not to move with the times? Are you so sure that the old ways were the best?
I dont know how old you are, Dixie, but I would guess you are younger than me. If I can see the benefits of modernity why the hell can't you?
Now, before you say any more on the subject of democracy and peace, please go to your local library and READ for chrissakes!Read about democracy. Read about what the world thinks of you. Read how you are no longer top dog. Read how Alabama is not the world in microcosm.
Like the other loonies here you can, if you wish, simply say 'fuck the rest of the world', but I don't think you are quite that stupid.
Click to expand...

Officials from Saddam's regime met eight times (that we know about), with members of alQaeda in the months before the 9/11 attacks. The minister of defense made a special trip to Afghanistan to meet with Bin Laden personally. They weren't sharing cookie recipes. We also had clear evidence Saddam helped fund the 1995 attack on the WTC, and the mastermind of that attack was living in Baghdad, getting a check from the Iraqi government. So THAT is how Saddam was connected to 9/11, and if you are too stupid to understand or comprehend this connection, you are too stupid to have anything to do with running our country. (Not that YOU ever will.)

I am 53 years old, and I live in Alabama because I choose to live in Alabama. It's a beautiful state with a nice climate a good portion of the year, and relatively low cost of living. Contrary to what you've probably read, there aren't distant banjo sounds coming from the woods, houses don't have dirt floors, and people do wear shoes most of the time. We're not all a bunch of toothless hicks, as is often portrayed in film, and we don't all go driving around in pickups with rebel flags and gun racks in the window, yelling "YEE HAWW!" Those are called STEREOTYPES, and you adopting the belief that those are indicative of the truth, makes you an intolerant bigot who is ignorant of the truth.

I reject your European socialist ideology, it does not work, as most of southern Europe is discovering now. Democracy, freedom and liberty, those DO work, and HAVE worked for over 200 years here. We're NOT an aggressor nation, we never have been. We advocate PEACE through democracy and freedom. We have a problem with people constructing makeshift boats so they can come to America, they don't do that because they HATE us! Many parts of the world are simply jealous of us and wish they had what we have here. We stand up for freedom and democracy because our principles call for it. We believe that all men are created equal and endowed with rights, not by man, but by our Creator. We have a responsibility to our fellow man, to instill those values in them, and help people to realize the same freedom and liberty. If you wish to reject that and hold on to some 17th century idea who's time has come and gone, that is YOUR problem, not ours.
 
Dixie, I'd really like you to convey this whole sentiment to the GOP, so that perhaps they can add this to their platform. It would be interesting to see how they'd fare if they promised countless more Iraq adventures to the American people - going from one oppressed country to the next, with a 10-year commitment, countless lost lives, millions of refugees created, trillions spent.

That should really work well.
 
Dixie said:
Officials from Saddam's regime met eight times (that we know about), with members of alQaeda in the months before the 9/11 attacks. The minister of defense made a special trip to Afghanistan to meet with Bin Laden personally. They weren't sharing cookie recipes. We also had clear evidence Saddam helped fund the 1995 attack on the WTC, and the mastermind of that attack was living in Baghdad, getting a check from the Iraqi government. So THAT is how Saddam was connected to 9/11, and if you are too stupid to understand or comprehend this connection, you are too stupid to have anything to do with running our country. (Not that YOU ever will.)
Click to expand...

This shit was discredited by US intelligence a year before Cheney said it on national TV.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top