<p>Yep, there are a few of them out there.</p>
<p>lame duck = cooked goose</p>
<p>I heard the most astute description of him lately, "The Imposter."</p>
<p>Weski -- yes, that's why I posted with a wink ;) because the President isn't running. Although I disagree with the way the President is passing spending bills, I think you can tell from my prior note that I agree and support his foreign policies. This country is, sadly, dealing with fanatics who have one goal: to destroy this country and Americans. They will die for it. The President has taken a bold step -- to try to stop terrorism before it can destroy us by going on the offesive -- and many don't like that idea -- or him. He has made a number of errors for sure -- but his heart is in the right place (I believe) and his tough positions are needed. I am getting tired of the Bush bashing, not just on this board, but in the media. There are men and women in harm's way and they need to be supported. These are intelligent men and women who understand that saying "I support the troops but not the President and not the war" is hollow. So, Weski, I very much support this President although I am hoping the next one will do a much better job. usna09mom: I'm sure you thought your post was funny. I found it insulting.</p>
<p>I agree with Bush's move to "go on the offensive" in Afganistan. Not only was it the most correct and logical choice following 9/11 it also provided us with a "venue" to take on terrorists if the plan was to "draw them out" and "take them out" far from our nations borders. Great plan, I believe. Where it went wrong was Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was unrelated to 9/11 or terrorism. It was an exercise based on bad intelligence coupled with false assumptions, a nationwide exhuberance to send our military out there and "get some", poor long term planning, a lot of wishful thinking and a fundamental misunderstanding of the political and social ramifications of removing the Saddam regime.---As brutal as it was, it was the only thing keeping the political situation stable between so many groups that literally hate each other. It has diverted vital troops and resources away from the fight with the Taliban (which, by the way is still raging in Afganistan after 4 years) and the search for Bin Laden, in order to try to stabilize a country that wasn't a key player with either Al-Queada or international terrorism to begin with. It was a brutal totalitarian dictatorship, but they are a dime a dozen on this planet and we can't take them all on---</p>
<p>The war on terror should have come first, and that meant Afganistan (and still does), not Iraq. That doesn't make me "anti-war", just picky about how, why, and with whom I go to war. I support the troops. I support the war on terror. I also recognize we have taken a course down a very dangerous road because of some very bad decisions.</p>
<p>That said, the stark reality is we ARE in Iraq. We can't just up and leave---we have committed ourselves to seeing this through. I am hopeful that a future administration (Republican or Democrat, I don't care) will see the need for and work towards getting the rest of the free world to commit to helping us in Iraq, both monetarily and with troops. I don't see that ever happening with the current administration--too many bridges have been burned. I do, however, believe that the world will be more receptive to someone new in the White House. Till we get that international help, our enemies will continue to take comfort in the fact that the rest of the world sees Iraq as an American war, not a war waged by the free world against terrorism.</p>
<p>Is it possible to be insulted by a post that is not directed to you?</p>
<p>Shogun: Agreed.
Afghanistan: No problem except for "Where is Osama?"
Iraq: I can live with the invasion; not particularly well, but if you want to argue that we are planting the seeds of democracy . . . okay, more power to you and I am willing to pass the argument. The post-war, however, has been completely screwed up and NOBODY has been held accountable. Amazing! Over $500B in resources have been diverted to Iraq while domestic issues remain festering like boils on the skin of a leper. How can one argue that this President [and his Secretary of Defense] should not be held accountable for the travesty that is going on. </p>
<p>I feel so much sorrow for those parents that have lost children and will live to see those deaths be for naught. One might, emphasize might, argue that the Vietnam war disrupted the march of communism, disrupted the dominoes so to speak. Consider all the young lives that were wasted in that endeavor in the hopes of spreading democracy. To what end? Is Vietnam now considered a shining light on the hill of democracy?</p>
<p>I have said on other posts, I don't seek to change anybody's mind. To paraphrase a previous Bush: Ain't gonna do it. Not gonna happen.</p>
<p>I asked about voting for incumbents because 98% of congress gets re-elected. It's crazy. People keep complaining about the politicians, the President, the lawyers, the lack of vision in this country, etc., etc., etc. THEN the same whiners and name-callers keep voting for THEIR congressman, THEIR senator, or THEIR party. The Republicans are doing nothing more than the Democrats did when they controlled the Congress and presidency for so many years.</p>
<p>Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It is absolutely time to send Republicans a message and vote some of them out. I will say the same thing when Democrats become corrupt after ten+ years of controlling the Congress and the presidency. </p>
<p>Now let the sycophants bluster on about how supporting the troops requires one to support the President. * [Can you be an anonymous self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people? I suppose, in the same way that anonymous insults can be received. Oh well!] *</p>
<p>It's Sunday and the Oscars are not particularly exciting so bring it on. * [Where are the sexy dresses? Have we so suppressed expression in this country that we can't see some movie star cleavage? I WANT CLEAVAGE. I want some Cher-like exposure of skin!] *</p>
<p>hey Bill, whatever happened to the Navy brass who allowed cher to do the music video on the battleship? Did they get a pay cut?</p>
<p>We all know how this is going to end. Too much discord to resolve the decades-old conflicts/hatred/retribution, so the Sunni/Shiite government never materializes. A complete coalition troop withdrawal (which has been taking place over the past two years already) and within a couple of years all American troops are out of Iraq. However, what happens to the Iraqis who cooperated with the Americans? Like the South Vietnamese who worked with the Americans in Vietnam, their lives will be in jeopardy, so they will come to the United States as political refugees. Lets hope they get a better reception than the UAE port deal.</p>
<p>The video was shot on the USS Missouri. I don't remember the exact timing of it all, but I suspect it was shot after decommissioning. In any event, it was a heck of a video!</p>
<p>afadad,
I have several questions:</p>
<ol>
<li> What country was most threatened by Sadaam Hussein?</li>
<li> Why do you think Hamas received so much popular support?</li>
</ol>
<p>bill, you are too funny! How do you remember the ship? Really, heads rolled on that one, didn't they?</p>
<p>Shogun -- I also agree with much of what you said. The invasion was clearly based on bad intelligence but it was intelligence that was strongly believed by almost every major country. So, believing that the weapons were there and understanding the brutality of the regime, I supported the invasion as did Congress, most Americans and a number of allies. In fact, most people who are today against the war, felt very differently back then. So Bush made an appropriate decision that was. sadly, based on bad intelligence. But, once there, as you suggest, we cannot simply leave and I, too, am hopeful that a future administration will do a much better job. Today, the war on terror is not just in Afganistan however. That battle is as big in Iraq as it is anywhere. Today Al-Queada is firmly entrenched there and our actions in Iraq have resulted in the capture of many of them. Attacks have been prevented and many terrorists imprisioned. It may not even be the case that Bin Laden is all that important to the war at this juncture. </p>
<p>Bill -- yes it is very possible to be insulted by a post not directed to me. I would be insulted by a post that defames my family, my country or even my God -- even though that sounds trite. But, perhaps I did react a little harshly. On the postwar screw up and accountablity -- you are right on and we must hold the President accountable -- but also accountable for the new schools, the new roles women are playing in Iraq, the new hospitals, the newly trained Iraqi police and soldiers, new elections, a new constitution and the elimination of some pretty brutal guys. BUT we also must hold him accountable for civil war if it can't be contained and the resource drain as you have eloquently put it. I also agree with your views on incumbents and we have to have a change -- I hope it works. Now, on the "supporting the troops requires one to support the President" issue -- here I can't agree. Un- constrained Bush bashing really does embolden the enemy -- remarks made by Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy are heard on Al Jazeera and used to recruit and win the support of terrorism world wide. There are ways of disagreeing with a President (like, I've done here) that do not cross a line and do not put troops in harms way -- if you can get past the politics.<br>
USNAMom -- We all believed (maybe you too?) that Hussein threatened the world. 17 UN resolutions were not made because the World thought Husseein was another Amin. Hamas is receiving support because Isreal has demonstrated a willingness to give up land to the Palastinians without anything in return. Hamas is willing to exploit such weakness, even violently. Also, see my point above about Bush bashing. Do you believe we were not hated prior to the invasion? Look at 9/11, the USS Cole, various embassies around the world, etc. Islamic Facists hated us before and they hate us now and they are not interested in negotiation. I will agree though, that our invasion in Iraq hasn't helped. But we also haven't seen terrorism in our borders since 9/11. Al Queada is very patient however, and we all need to be concerned about that. Even if we disagree on most of the rest of this!</p>
<p>Apologies if I was a little too abrupt from your last post. I had just finished reading some unusually hateful US bashing on the part of Americans overseas and I was more ****ed off about that! Pls accept my apology.</p>
<p>Usna09mom -- I still say your wrong about the Chinese trade imbalance but we can agree to disagree there too! ;)</p>
<p>The reason I started this thread was the subject brought together our homeland security, international relations, terrorism, global business and in particular, the maritime business. We have a convergance of factors here and parsing them is tricky. </p>
<p>For those of us in the Service Academy parents group, our kids will be the ones enforcing and living through the long-term effects. The Coast Guard is the enforcement agency - and needs more resources. </p>
<p>The US merchant marine has virtually gone down the tubes due to national policies, labor issues and globalization. Anyone who has been to a modern port recently and observed the incredible movement of containers understands some of the complexities. These are huge operations with many, many people and much capital involved. And no US firm has the deep pockets and capabilities of the foreign firms at this time. </p>
<p>And Congress just now is finding it "shocking, just shocking." And certainly there is enough blame to spread to the company and to the administration for not running the traps as they should have with Congress - knowing that a state-owned company from the middle east (even if the friendliest of friends) is different than a British or even an Asian multinational. One suspects that a US subsidiary with its own Board, etc. would be formed. One hopes the Coast Guard fully funded and ID for labor and cargo be implemented, sooner than later. As all of this takes big $, don't expect miracles anytime soon. </p>
<p>People SEE airplanes, but not as many SEE ships - thus all the billions being thrown at airport security (and it's where the 9/11 terrorist DID come through). But our economy is global now and most comes through our ports. </p>
<p>While I am not impressed by the shrill political comments bandied about, as a parent of a merchant mariner-to-be, I am glad to see the topic rise to public consciousness. Our sons and daughters will be on the front lines of change.</p>
<p>Bill---I spent at least an hour looking for Cher on the Missouri on our last trip to Pearl Harbor----she was no where to be found....darn it.</p>
<p>It was an eerie feeling standing on the Missouri and the Arizona Memorial and seeing Japanese torpedo bombers and fighters buzzing the harbor---they were shooting the movie "Pearl Harbor" all that week. I got a lot of cool video that day.</p>
<p>As far as "Bad intelliegence" goes I am sure history will eventually begin to sort it all out. Iam not so sure whether it was our intelligence that was so bad prior to the Iraq invasion, or it was that our that interpretation got bumped up against our expectations and we just wouldn't see things as they really were. Iam sure Colin Powell would have a lot to say about the subject if he were talking.</p>
<p>The Chinese trade imbalance keeps our interest rates low and inflation at a minimum. The public cannot grasp insanely complicated economic trends so the media shouldn't even mention it.</p>
<p>And usnamom, I can see that this senior fellow fellow failed to mention that China owned BILLIONS and BILLIONS worth of US bonds way before the war ever started. In fact, the US has cut the sale of bonds to Asia. Read this incredibly long and boring article if you want to sound like an expert in the field of world economics. <a href="http://www.chicagofed.org/consumer_information/strong_dollar_weak_dollar.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://www.chicagofed.org/consumer_information/strong_dollar_weak_dollar.cfm</a></p>
<p>Just to keep everybody in the right frame of mind . . .</p>
<p>In order to "find" insult, there must be an intended insult. [Insult. n. [1] a rude expression intended to offend or hurt; a deliberately offensive act or something producing the effect of an affront] Intent, therefore, seems to be an essential element to an insult. [Intention. The willingness to bring about something planned or foreseen; the state being set to do somethin.] No intent, no insult. I doubt that USNA09mom intended to insult you. While one might unilaterally find a remark offensive that was not intended to be so [Offensive. Disagreeable to the senses] it is less likely--perhaps impossible-- that one may unilaterally find insult.</p>
<p>But I digress . . .it seems the enemy is emboldened with or without attacks on the President's abilities. [Although some Democrats are so shrill that they might as well be senseless.]</p>
<p>Let's just agree that the situation is FUBARed. Personally? I say let's nuke the hell out of the bad guys and get out of Dodge! In the alternative, lets make a deal with the Chinese and the Russians: We each get one-third of the oil and just render the middle east an international area of servitude. [Ooops, let my one-dimensional side come through.] Enough is enough!</p>
<p>Fair enough Bill -- great post!</p>
<p>Bill, your last paragraph works for me.</p>
<p>Golly Gee, Bill, I bet some of our younger applicants might not catch your absolutely perfect word for the port deal - FUBARed - care to demonstrate your dictionary skills on this one? ;)</p>