We're Going To...
 

Since 9/11 -

We're Going To... crush Bin Laden and the Taliban.

Sounds good.

We're Going To... find Bin Laden.

I hope so.

We're Going To... eliminate the imminent threat of attack from Saddam Hussein.

Uh ... what? What happened to Bin Laden?

We're Going To... be welcomed as liberators in Iraq and setup democracy in the Middle East to set an example and it won't cost the U.S. taxpayers much money at all.

Are you for real?

We're Going To... continue on with our successful plan. We can't give up now, we're VERY close! And if Iran doesn't toe the line, we're going to implement our successful plan on them!

I wonder who I should vote for?

This is not a flame but...what is this thread about?

It seems like a 30 second sound bite of about 10 or 20 other threads.

Unless there is a reason for it, it's a goner.

I'm trying to distill the questions that don't get answered in 10 or 20 other threads.

At each step, we're told a certain plan of action. The plan is questioned, but the questions are ignored and the plan is implemented. In the face of zero success - we're told to stay on course with the plan. The "course" has never what we're told - all the while the magic carrot of "victory" "freedom" "democracy" is waved in front of our faces.

Where is the logic in claiming we must stay on course to achieve these things if there has been no progress and none of the expectations that were provided have been met?

It's nice to claim "trust us - we'll get there - don't give up - have patience". But I could just as easily make the claim that if everyone donates $1 to me, I'll provide "victory" "freedom" and "democracy".

I have to type more information with this new version than I intended.

Actual reply



History

Historically we have preemptively invaded Middle Eastern secular dictatorships, killed 10's of thousands of civilians, and achieved a secular democracy?

Historically we have done many things. To claim that all of our actions are justified and are the only available options (even while they fail) because of history is useless. If we put a child in charge of everything, should we do whatever he says because of "history"?

Historically, when the government consistently fails, the people elect a new government.

"We're Going To..." rehash the same crap from a dozen other threads, yet again.

Are you for real?

It's ridiculous to expect complete and total success of two invasions, and a probably-never-ending "war on terror" within four years of a new President's administration. It's also a bit simple-minded to assume that the administration would do nothing but hunt for Bin Laden in the hills of Pakistan/Afghanistan. As inflated as Bin Laden's importance has been by the media, he is not recognized as the "brains behind the operation" by our intelligence officials -- merely as a financial provider and a symbol. As far as finances go, his funds have been siezed and locked down for the most part by us. Bin Laden has been crippled -- to assume that he is skulking around planning the next 9/11 is just as silly as claims that Saddam Hussein was masterminding attacks on our troops from a secret bunker before he was found hiding in a small hole in the ground, unshaven and dirty.

People seem to think becuase we don't have X amount of regular troops in Afganistan we've forgotten about it.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that perhaps at this point in operations special ops is better suited then a bunch of grunts?

They'll welcome us as liberators. It was not my expectation. It was the expectation of the people that decided this is what we would do.

We can debate forever the opinions of whether Al Qaeda has been dealt a crippling blow or whether terrorism around the world is increasing. Those are discussions you can have in one of the 10 or 20 other threads where the facts of the increase in terrorist activities since Afghanistan and Iraq are ignored.

As I said - this is a thread where I want someone to tell me something other than "just give it time that we never believed it would take even when we told you it wouldn't take much time at all".

Democracy, freedom, victory - these are all great ideals. But all of the evidence of the course of this country over the past 3 years demonstrates that we are not any closer to achieving them. The plans have failed to live up to their claims.

Possibly so. But it's been almost 2 years since we removed troops from the area and we do not have Bin Laden.

How long should we continue to follow a course of action which has had no success?

Depends on how you define success now doesn't it. So far no more big booms in the U.S. I think it will happen, but for now, it seems to be working.

Two years is practically nothing. Changing the geopolitical landscape in order to secure our future is not the same as ordering something to eat at a drive-through window. It's going to take time, and any politician who says differently (Kerry, for instance) is a liar.

Troll baiting are we? Success is purely in perspective. You could argue all night and I doubt it would change anyone's mind as to whether we have been successful or not. Overall, while we haven't been as successful as I feel we should have been, things aren't going as bad as they could be. Therefore we have had some measure of success. On Oct 9th the Afghans will hold an election. Next year the Iraqi's will also hold an election. In some respects, our military is better suited to keep the insurgents busy over there versus civilians here in our streets, it appears the combatants are more evenly matched this way. As ustwo stated, there hasn't been an attack here since 9/11, so that has to be counted as some sort of success. So yes we have had setbacks, but there has been a few things to cheer about. From your perspective you may not feel there has been any success, but from my view we have been at least 75% successful. As I stated above, success is merely a perspective or opinion. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

Why do I have to repeat myself on such a basic point?

Bush + Co. said it would be easy. I haven't seen anyone other than neo-cons make the claim that it would be easy. I do recall many people claiming it would not be easy and probably not possible - in direct contradiction to the neo-cons. And now those neo-cons want me to believe that everyone else claimed it would be easy? Not gonna happen.

If you originally claimed it would be easy to achieve democracy and freedom while others said it would not and that it wasn't likely ever with the methods suggested - why should anyone believe you now when you say "yeah, it's gonna be long and hard but it is still possible if we just keep doing what we've been doing"?

"It's gonna be easy! We'll achieve our goal."
- It's not gonna be easy and we very likely won't achieve our goal.

"It's a long, difficult process. We'll achieve our goal."
- OK. :crazy:

I don't recall Bush ever saying it would be easy -- how about any quotes (in context) to back that up?

You don't recall the "they'll welcome us as liberators" talking point?

You don't recall Wolfowitz claiming it would basically not cost U.S. taxpayers any money?

Fight trolling with trolling

We have had zero success in the stated expectations. It might be a "success" in your mind that Iraq will hold elections almost 2 years after we invaded - but that is not where the bar for success was placed before the invasion. If elections were not able to held in Iraq for 10 years, you could still call that a "success" if you wanted to. And that assumes an election in a predominant Shite country will result in a secular democracy. Maybe we're successful because Al Qaeda has not destroyed America? Maybe we're successful because Bin Laden didn't start a nuclear holocaust?

This administration has promised things which any sane person knew were impossible. Even now, the neo-cons are trying to make us forget that they even said it would be easy. They based their plan of action on those promises - and therefore they failed. Or, they knew all along that their promises were impossible but intentionally deceived the populace. Either way I'm looking for one reason that we should continue to allow proven dreamers or liars to manage the country.

It's all nice and wonderful to hold the opinion that things have been successful - but considering the measurement for success has been constantly lowered, you can't expect your opinion of success to carry much weight.

And largely the Iraqi's did. Kurds like us, most shiites are reasonable human beings, out side of Al-Sadr and his goons they are working well with us. Because of a small percentage of sunni's (who comprise the smallest ethnic group in Iraq) and a select few shiite's pushing for another Iran, I think we are sitting pretty in Iraq. Also you seem to think that all of the post-war combat in Iraq is from Iraqi's, when we know that there is a very active and organized influx and insurgency from foreign fighters.

If the situation in Iraq is deemed a success of the "they'll welcome us as liberators" claim - I'm curious what "it'll be a tough battle for stability post-Saddam" would have meant.

And opinion polls out of Iraq have consistently shown that the majority of Iraqi's do not want the U.S. troops in their country.

what stability is threatened right now? Sure there is some rough spots, but its not like the country has erupted in civil war (yet).

All I see is a group of people that believe that someone else could have done a better job. These people must have believed in a quick and easy victory for their unelected official. They believe that government officials are all for themselves. That the rich are the root of all evil.

Americans have lost their patience. They want a quick fix to all ills. When it doesn't happen they bitch, whine and carry on like they have all the answers. Nitpicking and paranoid.

This is my perception of many of the posts here in tilted politics. No, I don't follow blindly in case you were wondering. I do understand that change will be slow, we will lose certain privacy's and of course the next guy can do a better job. Hand the best person a bag of shit and expect him to take all the blame for it, fix it without spending money and not hurt anyones feelings.

The end.

Are you claiming Iraq is stable right now? Stability is not threatened because it doesn't exist.

Redefining terms is not going to help anyone.

If success is not defined as a result which matches expectations - please give me your definition.

If stability is defined as the current situation in Iraq - please tell me what more we hope to gain. Also, how you would describe another country - Canada for instance? Are they "stable" or something else?

I have a question.... please explain where this thinking is wrong.

Bush is fighting this war primarily with Clinton's men (in 8 years most of the generals were probably promoted during the Clinton Adnimistration, most of the higher enlisteds probably came from Clinton's years. (Having been in the military, promotions take years and training... so in Bush's 4 years he may have promoted a few generals and E-8's and up, but they were probably lower ranked and promoted to a position for Bush to promote by Clinton.

So, if Kerry is elected it is safe to say that people he would promote are Bush's. Now if Bush's camp says the military just won't be the same and we'll be hurt in the war, if Kerry is elected. All we do is change presidents, the military structure pretty much remains the same, especially in time of war.

If Kerry is elected the same defense mechanisms and people Bush has in place will still be there unless Kerry deems them necessary to change. And he has not stated that, as far as I know. Therefore, to predict we'll be hit with Kerry and not Bush, as the VP alluded to would be foolish and would be saying that the people in place would not do the same job for Kerry as they would Bush. That to me sounds treasonous, because those people's jobs are to defend the country regardless of who the Commander in Chief is.

All I foresee is if Kerry is elected perhaps we'll find a peace. With Bush we'll continue wars and lies for why.

This thread is about the claim that no one else can do a better job but when we look at the job that has been done, none of it matches the claims of the people that have done it.

If those same people now claim that no one can do better - why should we place value in that opinion?

If I claim I can solve world hunger very easily and you believe me and give me what I ask for to do it, and then I fail to solve world hunger very easily - are you going to give me more of what I ask for now? How many impossible expectations am I allowed to set before you start to accept the fact that I am not going to live up to them?

Pan it doesn't matter because the generals are not the one's writing the policy. If Bush is gone so are Rummy and Wolfowitz, Wolfowitz was the one who basically wrote the policy.

Does that even remotely address your post? Or am I reading it wrong?

I haven't been convinced this thread has a purpose other than to troll.

Closed.