Tommy Sowell nails it!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by radicand, Jan 17, 2007.

  1. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Dems Imperfect
    Neither party had a crystal ball looking in on Iraq.

    By Thomas Sowell


    Critics of the Bush administration’s conduct of the war in Iraq have long demanded that he admit his mistakes. But they have not admitted their own past mistakes, much less admit the potentially catastrophic mistake they will make in the future if they make it impossible to sustain military operations there.

    Critics have been proved wrong repeatedly in their claims that elections could not be held in Iraq or a government formed there. Iraqi-voter turnout, even in the face of terrorist threats, has exceeded voter turnout in the United States.

    During the 2004 presidential election campaign, John Kerry warned that the Bush administration had plans to impose a military draft immediately after being reelected.

    Two years later, there is no sign of a military draft on the horizon. The only people who have been advocating a military draft have been Democrats like Charles Rangel — transparently as part of their class warfare political strategy of claiming that “the poor” are fighting and dying while “the rich” stay home and enjoy life. No facts back up this claim.

    Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries. The miscalculations in the Iraq war have not been military but political.

    Saddam Hussein’s army was defeated quickly, decisively, and with far lower American casualty rates than in previous wars. Clearly there were ample numbers of American troops to accomplish that mission.

    President Bush was right to listen to the military as regards the conduct of the war. But perhaps he should have sought the advice of police chiefs as regards maintaining law and order.

    For that we did not have enough troops in Iraq and — more important — the troops we did have were under too many politically imposed restrictions. Put bluntly, they needed to tell the many private militias in Iraq to drop their guns or get killed.

    Far fewer people would have died if they had. Of course, hand-wringers around the world, beginning with the American media, would have denounced such “brutality” and claimed that “negotiations” could have prevented such bloodshed.

    The Iraqi government has negotiated, if not collaborated, with some of these domestic terrorists — and the net result has been escalating violence and mounting death tolls.

    A very thoughtful article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Singapore’s former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew explained the realities of maintaining order after a conquest. You do not do it by a wholesale banishing of those who maintained order before the conquest.

    The most fundamental difference between President Bush and his critics has not been in who has made mistakes, because both have. The biggest difference has been that the President has taken a long-run view of the worldwide war on terror, while his critics are seeking a quick fix.

    Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They don’t seem to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously see a clear connection, which they express in both words and deeds.

    Terrorists are pouring into Iraq, even at the cost of their lives, in order to prevent a free, democratic government from being established in the Middle East. They see victory or defeat in Iraq as having major and long-lasting repercussions throughout the region and even throughout the world.

    Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections.

    Both individuals within Iraq and countries throughout the Middle East must make life-and-death choices, based on whether they are safer to cooperate with the United States or to align themselves with the terrorists.

    If the United States is here today and gone tomorrow, while the terrorists have already demonstrated their staying power and tenacity, we can expect a catastrophic realignment of forces in a region whose oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world.

    With fanatical extremists controlling both Middle East oil and nuclear weapons, what happens in the 2008 elections can look like small potatoes compared to the horrors we bequeath our children.

    COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


    Sowell points out mistakes on both sides of this, but he makes a key point that many seem to miss. That is that this is not a short term issue and Bush, ever increasing only Bush on a national scale, sees this. For those (critics here) who continue to be displeased with our presence in Iraq, you may want to consider that there is a bigger picture here than simply the present. And, there was/is probably a bigger plan than simply making Iraq a free country. Naturally, we will probably never know until well after a winner has surfaced.

    Though, I recognize that for some any considerations will be hard due to the fact that for some of you life is only about this minute and whatever gratification it may provide for you.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Sickening. Total mischaracterization of the Democratic position. We care about more than elections, it was Bush who held off the report from the Iraq Study Group until after the election.

    Elections don't make a Democracy, even Saddam had elections, and there is still no stable government in Iraq.

    Kerry was correct, as military draft would have been necessary for success, since we cannot sustain troop numbers in sufficient numbers with a volunterr. army. Note, success has not been achieved, far from it.

    The subsequent occupation should have been part of the military plan, but for some reason, Rumsfeld refused to plan for an occupation.

    So, Bush isn't allowing the military commanded by him, to wage a proper counter-insurgency operation? I don't buy that weak argument for one second.

    NO, the critics claim that there WAS no connection between the terrorists who attacked us and Iraq. There is NOW. These foriegners are pursuing their own agenda, but so are the Shia, and the Sunnis who feel left out of the government.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    spidergoat, Bull---t
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Which part?

    I am forced to conclude the same deficiency that compells someone to support Bush also prevents them understanding his mistakes.
     
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Bush has never shown a shred of evidence that his intelligence is even close to average, that he is capable of thinking about the future, that he has any sense of responsibility, or that he cares about other people. To imagine that this man is now looking into the distant future and making decisions in order to improve the world is utterly ridiculous. I generally like Sowell because he is an articulate libertarian, but he's gone off the deep end on this one.

    Bush is a moron, people. Get used to it. The man can't even speak his native language fluently; what better indicator of intelligence is there than a flagrant inability to communicate? This war is all about Saddam humiliating his daddy, and his buddies in the energy industry are manipulating him to make the most of it..
     
  9. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    I will give one shred. He had a higher GPA than "America's Soldier" John Kerry.

    I wonder if Bush's energy buddies are also in cohorts with OBL? Just curious!!

    Personally, while I understand your speaking indicator, I think writing and reading comprehension are better indicators. But yes, I hate listening to him as well.

    Your comments of Saddam do not speak very well of you.
     
  10. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    I bet that if you really thought statement through you catch your mistake.

    Remember Bush does command the military and there are rules as proscribed by ???????, and Bush has ordered them to follow. I don't know, but something seems funny about this statement.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The military itself demanded these rules some years ago. I feel our failure has been to not follow them as closely as we should have. In the LONG TERM, we may not gain advantage as quickly, making for good photo ops and political returns, but we might have done something more lasting.

    Part of counter-insurgency is gaining the trust and cooperation of the people. How can they trust us if we don't follow our own rules? The idea that Bush felt limited in his power is laughable. If anything, he has assumed more power than any president in history.

    This is supposed to be the war on terror, how much has been accomplished?
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    From WIKI

    In 2006, a real historiometric study published in the scientific journal Political Psychology, compared the IQs of all US presidents since 1900. It rated G.W. Bush second last, with an estimated IQ between 111.1 and 138.5, and mean of 120 (which still is well above the standardised average of 100).[8] In an interview, it was noted by the study's director that “Bush may be ‘much smarter’ than the findings imply” but that he “scores particularly unimpressively for ‘openness to experience, a cognitive proclivity that encompasses unusual receptiveness to fantasy, aesthetics, actions, ideas and values.’” Still, the author concluded that Bush “is definitely intelligent … certainly smart enough to be president of the United States”.[9] Other estimates of the IQ of G.W. Bush have been based on his SAT score of 1206 (566 for verbal and 640 for math),[10] which would equal an IQ of around 125-129.[11][12] No official IQ data for George Bush are available, however.[13]
     
  13. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    Didn't he get into Yale because of his dad, and not because of his scholarly knowledge?
     
  14. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    All that is unnecessary, Michael. His deeds speak more than his grade point average ever could, and besides, Bush doesn't have the talent to fail so grandly without help.
     
  15. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638

    There is no insurgency that is media speak to deny what it really is: terrorism.

    Dude, read the Constitution. The American one!! The commander in chief is limited by the military rules set forth from congress.

    Finally, Bush only assumed the power that every president in U.S. history has had. That idea, that he has given himself more power, is what is laughable. The left just denies it, because it does not fit the "we hate Bush" agenda.

    In fact that is really what this bitching is all about, if a democrat where prez there would be no problems as far as the war.
     
  16. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    There would have been a war in Iraq even with a Democrat President from the start?
     
  17. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Speaking of laughable, that (highlighted in red) is hilarious.
     
  18. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Great response. That must have taken you all night to come with it.
     
  19. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    WTF?

    I'm asking a question you dumb fuck. How would I have taken all night to respond to a post you wrote 2 minutes ago?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2007
  20. Hurricane Angel I am the Metatron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    471
    lolol!

    Actually the way you "asked" the question makes it sound like a question.
     
  21. radicand Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    638
    Basic reading comp skills would be nice wouldn't it!!

    I placed some words in their that weren't there. You are right I misread your post.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    To answer your question:

    You think that a democrat would not have responded to 9-11? This is the biggest problem and something I was trying to allude to earlier. For dems, Iraq and the war on terror are seperate. The reality is that they are inseperable. You do what you can to withdraw or greatly diminish our presence there. You do greater damage to the overall fight, in fact you pretty much what the terrorist want us to do: surrender.

    As for whining about Bush, all you have to do is read the headlines. Whenever Bush does as the dems suggest, they change their minds and say it is wrong. It really is not that hard. Most of you have fallen prey to democratic party hatred of one man, because they incorrectly claim he was never elected in the first place. I can't say that all the scandalous accusations, petty infighting, and partisanship is entirely the fault of democrats, because idiotic republicans are as responsible. However, most of it originates with democrats.

    The incredulity of it all is that dems always bitch about how selfish Ameica is and how it only does things to promote its own welfare. Then, dems bitch because we decided to globalize, so to speak the war on terrorism, instead of simply going after those who perpetrated 9-11. The greater goal (and I agree with those say it is impossible, but I still think that if everyone can come together through having friendly governments towards each other, we can curb terrorism a great bit) is to eliminate as much terroism as possible. No natiion of people should to accept terrrorism. No one should accept terrorism.



    I have a theory on why Iraq, as far as the war on terror, but I have not yet researched it enough to support it.
     
  22. river-wind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,671
    Were they inseperable prior to our invation of Iraq? Considering how little terrorism came out of the nation prior to our arrival (most of it was Saddam against his own people). If you are going to tie a nation to terrorism, why Iraq? Why not Saudi Arabia? The argument seems much stronger going in that direction.



    I disagree with much of the OP article, but one line sums it up. Anyone who thinks that "The miscalculations in the Iraq war have not been military but political." does not have much military understanding, nor have they listened to the military advice ignored by the Administration - the same advice that has been proven accurate over the past two years.

    From before the war even began, there were issues being raised about the military plan. Running headlong towards Bagdad for a quick and visible takover is not "victory". It is not a military success. Sun Tzu even addressed this "plan" in the Art of War - the scouts I work with pointed out to me in the first week that the US military was repeating the mistakes of over 2000 years ago.

    If the military is still acting as the police force in the post-"pacified" area, then military victory has yet to be achieved. War does not end when you set foot in your enemy's lands. It STARTS there.

    Welcome to the Iraq war. It started about a year ago.
     
  23. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    His puppeteers were able to erase an embarrassment in his military duty, propel him into the Texas statehouse, and manipulate the outcome of a national election. Compared to that, buying some grades at an Ivy League university is nothing.
    This is a case of politics making strange bedfellows. Even I doubt that they actually have meetings, but they certainly work nicely together.
    So what indicators are you talking about? I know he claims to have read some books and perhaps he actually read all the way through them, but in what way has he demonstrated any comprehension? I'm not much of a reader, but I know more about Western civilization's past and present than he does.

    You can hardly judge him by his writing, when's the last time a sentence written by a president was made public without being edited?

    I know there are highly intelligent people who are not very articulate. Saul Bellow was one. I can't imagine being a student in one of his celebrity courses. But all he did was speak slowly, pause a lot, search for the right word, and say "uh" too many times. When the sentence finally came out, it was an intelligent sentence. Nothing that comes out of Bush's mouth--even edited down for print--sounds like the output of an average intelligence.

    Not to mention... the result of a university education either. When he was asked at a press conference during his governorship why he had become the czar of capital punishment, he said it was because it's a deterrent. When a reporter pointed out that there is no credible evidence that capital punishment actually is a deterrent, he didn't argue. He just said, "Yes that's true, but there's also no evidence that it's not."

    Not only is he stupid, but what little intelligence he has he subjugates to his emotions. He likes killing people, so as long as he can do it legally he does it.
    Huh? That is hardly my own analysis of the events. Look at any op-ed page and you'll probably find one more writer throwing in the towel on trying to defend Bush and admitting that the only reason for attacking Saddam (of all the corrupt despots in the Middle East, at least he ran the only truly secular society in the entire region, something we claim to cherish) that can withstand any scrutiny is simply a family grudge. This is the Hatfields and the McCoys writ large.
     

Share This Page