Has the Bush Doctrine failed?

[Spexxvet]

I seem to remember opposition to the invasion - that was before any body bags returned.

[Flint]

People do tend to oppose things that are done for no apparent reason...
(Or if the public is treated like it can't be trusted to understand the real reasons.)

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Flint

People do tend to oppose things that are done for no apparent reason...
(Or if the public is treated like it can't be trusted to understand the real reasons.)

The reason was and is always apparent to me, indeed it seems escapable only by deliberately burying one's head in the sand: there is no international terrorism without national sponsorship. It is proxy warfare. The GWOT therefore will have campaigns directed against nations as well as nebulous little groups. Campaigns within the larger war, not separate wars as the antivictory lobby tries to cast them.

Frankly, the antivictory lobby makes absolutely no sense to me. They never did, and they aren't in any hurry to start. Rational people do not root against democracy, but evil people and kooks all do.

The anti-Republican partisans are even more ridiculous if less toxic. The Democrats are longwinded in telling us the Republican Administration is flubbing this way, that way, and the other way. But ask the Dems to win the war, and how their strategy would be an improvement on actually winning our objectives in the face of bigoted hostility from foreign parties, and you won't get one single word of response. At best, you'll get some non-answer. This utter incompetence is why I will have nothing to do with the Democratic Party, and why I am convinced they must lose in 2008 if our Republic is to prevail. Compared to the Dems, the Republicans have all the brains and all the courage.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Compared to the Dems, the Republicans have all the brains and all the courage.

So which party did not have the balls to permit 10th Mountain to go after bin Laden? So which party still does not have the balls to go after bin Laden? So which party lied repeatedly - blamed Saddam for 11 September? Which party lied about not properly equipping troops in Iraq with protective armor because the insurgency did not exist? That repeatedly denied that bin Laden was a threat. And which poster here routinely ignores these facts? Funny. It is the same poster who has been caught repeatedly rewriting history for his personal agenda. Curious. Those are also George Jr's loyal supporters who somehow find solutions always in military crusades. Same loyal supporter who claimed to be militarily educated and yet could not even define the purpose of war.

Let's see. Who insisted we could not rescue Kuwait? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, etc. Monday morning military experts. These are people with brains? Well they do think extraordinarily similar to Urbane Guerrilla. Curious similarity.

We have Democratic and Republican extremists. And then we have people who instead learn reality. Urbane Guerrilla has identified one trend. The Democratic party is just to pathetically lead to understand even what they stand for. But then the only part of any party that really does demonstrate a grasp are those who work for America rather than promote party (Democratic or Republican) extremists.

[richlevy]

From Forbes

Afghanistan's world-leading opium cultivation rose a "staggering" 60 percent this year, the U.N. anti-drugs chief announced Saturday in urging the government to crack down on big traffickers and remove corrupt officials and police.

The record crop yielded 6,100 tons of opium, or enough to make 610 tons of heroin - outstripping the demand of the world's heroin users by a third, according to U.N. figures.

Officials warned that the illicit trade is undermining the Afghan government, which is under attack by Islamic militants that a U.S.-led offensive helped drive from power in late 2001 for harboring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida bases.

So we invade two countries, one where we know our enemy Bin Laden is operating, and one where we know he isn't. We send the bulk of our forces to country number two and leave country number one with just enough to effectively hold the major cities.

As a result, business is booming. GWB is now responsible for a huge upsurge in exports and agribusiness and US consumers can probably expect lower prices. I guess capitalism works after all.

It's just too bad we're talking about heroin and not oil.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Analysts say conflicts in the Middle East have halted aggressive US policy, and may hint at end of West's military superiority.

I think the "analysts" are confused. They are equating the US Military's capabilities with the bumbling of Bush & Rumsfeld. That's like saying a gun isn't effective because they guy holding it can't shoot. The problem is easily fixed by changing the shooter which is a whole lot easier than redesigning the gun.

[Flint]

That cat, headsplice, is one pony-rewardin' motherfvcker...

[headsplice]

So? I like ponies. Don't you?

[Griff]

Are we talking Mongolian bbq?

[headsplice]

Tomayto -- tomahto

[Hippikos]

Frankly, the antivictory lobby makes absolutely no sense to me.

Victory? What victory?

But ask the Dems to win the war, and how their strategy would be an improvement on actually winning our objectives in the face of bigoted hostility from foreign parties, and you won't get one single word of response.

Well, the anti-Republican partisans have no answer, the pro-Rep have no answer, the Dems have no answer, what your answer? Maybe there's no answer?

Compared to the Dems, the Republicans have all the brains and all the courage.

And see where that has lead to. I savely can say you can forget the brains. BTW who has Junior's brains?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw, you never did know history and now your delusional nature prevents you from knowing current events. Only liars say that the Administration blames Saddam for 9/11, and you may take that as from the burning bush.

And is or is it not so that the unarmored Humvees were in their stripped and lightweight configuration for long distance mobility, range, and crosscountry speed -- such as was exactly what they needed to run from Kuwait to Baghdad, while catching only disorganized opposition from units under battalion strength as the rest of the Iraqi Army evaporated? Was or was there not a gap of months before the insurgency got organized enough to get going? Frankly, the insurgency still isn't getting traction. It can't leave its home sectors, and it can't stop the new government from taking those provinces over, either. Are the insurgents visibly fighting for Saddam? Nope.

Not define the purpose of the war? Try this, if you can wrap your sick mind around it: win. Our enemies are all antidemocracy activists, seeking to maintain an ancient order of oppression, poverty, and general suckiness, that they may clutch privilege to themselves. You, tw, make common cause with such as these by your rabid anti-Americanism. We need not tolerate control of vital world resources by unfriendlies, not when we can have friendlies in that spot.

You are not a wise man, tw, nor are you a good one, what with what communism has done to your mentality.

Holding views opposed to tw's usually means you're on the side of the Republic, and of the angels.

[Happy Monkey]

Heh, now the unarmored Humvees were a clever plan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Of course it was, so the bouquets of flowers the Iraqis would throw wouldn't overload the suspension.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Heh, now the unarmored Humvees were a clever plan.

Yep, and in a few months they would have had the anti-gravity plates installed for long range recon.