Bush vs Kerry

[Gouki]

Unfortunately if you belong to Al Qadea or other jihadi groups; fortunately if you were among the majorety of voters in the United States.

Yeah, because anyone who doesn't support Bush must be a terrorist.   :

 

[Brad Sallows]

Bush has a huge mandate in terms of precedents, won in the face of intense resistance from many corners other that his Democratic opposition.  The turnout, his percentage of the popular vote, and the other Republican gains define the picture.

If there's any reaching out to be done, it'll have to be done by the people who have been reviling Bush and his supporters for the past four years.

 

[Ty]

Unfortunately if you belong to Al Qadea or other jihadi groups; fortunately if you were among the majorety of voters in the United States.

I'm not sure if that was a deliberate attempt at a troll, but I'll chip in.  Without even pointing out the obvious erroneous generalizations you've made, your own thought (I use the term loosely) implicitly states that 48% of Americans support Al-Qaeda.  I'm sure that New York- a heavily Democratic state- might disagree.  I'm somewhat convinced that various terror factions throughout the world are thrilled at Bush being voted in to the office. The "War President" gives radical nut-jobs a carte blanche for recruiting and mobilizing terrorist cells. Unilateralism, disregard for "collateral damage", as well constant posturing allow propaganda machines to make him out to be the stereotypical villain.  Some examples:

Iraq- no one can convince me that military action in Iraq could have been avoided in the foreseeable future.  Regardless of many leftist portrayals, Iraq was far from a Bathist paradise before the US invasion.  Rampant corruption and violant discremenation throughout the land provided a country ruled with an iron fist and held together by fear.  However, I don't understand how a "liberation" of a country includes a systematic massacre  of a sizeable portion of it's citizenry.  In order to invade Iraq to remove the Bathist regime, a slow, methodical, and casualty intensive war was inevitable.  A "shock and awe" strategy was absolutely the wrong way to liberate a country.  However, the war machine refuses to see large numbers of American soldiers coming home in body bags- which is very understandable.  In effect, what he had done is substitute Iraqi lives instead- at a much higher ratio.  And I'm not referring to military casualties.  The speed and and lack of planning of the operations in Iraq have led to an occupied country that does not have a working infrastructure nor an appreciation, respect, or welcome of US forces.  Very unfortunate considering the US troops that have given their lives to defend their country and honestly believe that they are liberating Iraq.  I won't even begin to discuss the weapons of mass destruction (or should that be distraction?)

Terrorism- After turning a blind eye (and in fact supporting) the Taliban for many years, the US declares them Public Enemy #1 and ousts them from Afghanistan.  This has nothing to do with fighting the war on Terrorists.  You can never fight a military war on terrorists.  They have no single country, no single leader, and no single agenda.  When a man is willing to kill himself for a cause (as in suicide bombers), you cannot scare them with your might.  Having a war on terrorism is the same as having a war on racism- you can't blow it up or pump it full of bullets.  It is a concept.  The only way to destroy a terrorist is to take away their reason for being- namely US foreign policy.  Stop alienating and destroying the economy of other countries (at no or marginal economic costs to you), stop the concept that collateral damage in the thousands is an acceptable measure in war, and stop believing that you are the only player on the world stage and you'll be amazed at how fast the terrorists will diminish in numbers.   This is not an attack on Americans- In fact, I firmly believe that the world is too quick to forget the amount of resources the US has spent on foreign aid, or the fact that, while flawed at best, the US is one of a few number of countries that offers true civil liberties.  

And now the disclaimer- I don't condone terrorism, nor do I support it.  I find it ironic that so-called Islamic fundamentalist use terror in the name of their religions while the latter expressly forbids it.  "Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind"- from the Muslim Holy Book.   However, one must condemn all acts of terrorism- which I define as a the deliberate targetting of civilians by armed forces (military or para-military)  This includes suicide bombers, collective punishment, as well as the gross disregard for collateral damage.  Militaries fight wars, when we forget that we loose all rights to call someone a terrorist.

As an side, I have no problem with a Republican president, in fact I believe that Arny is doing a bang-up job in Califormia.  He's showing that you can be a Republcian and not have to follow all the party lines, something no Democrat that I can recall has done.  We need more people like him on both sides of the fence.

This was not an attack on Bush, merely a statement of my disagreement that terrorists should be shaking in their boots (sandals, to perpetuate the stereotype) that he's been elected.

 

[muskrat89]

This was not an attack on Bush, merely a statement of my disagreement that terrorists should be shaking in their boots (sandals, to perpetuate the stereotype) that he's been elected

Well, in OBL's latest video, he specifically called out States (as targets) that supported Bush in the election. I wouldn't exactly call that an endorsement...  :

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I won't go into any long winded political diatribes, I don't have any. Bush waged the most decisive campaign mounted in years. He won a majority for his trouble. My gut tells me he was the best choice of the time, given Kerry and Nader as his opponents. He has my support, and whether our ponce, panty waist lieberal gov't likes it or not, for the good of both countries, they better displace their playground attitude and get on with the business of working together.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm not sure if that was a deliberate attempt at a troll, but I'll chip in.

You wingnuts are all taking that statement completely out of context.   It was directed to the fact that by Mr Bush being elected ensures that the War on Terror will be persecuted 110% for the next four years.   If you don't believe me, I can introduce you to some American service men and they can tell you what they've been doing for the last 3.

However, I don't understand how a "liberation" of a country includes a systematic massacre   of a sizeable portion of it's citizenry.

Massacre?    ???

I don't recall pits full of Iraqi's executed by American soldiers being dug up.

:

In order to invade Iraq to remove the Bathist regime, a slow, methodical, and casualty intensive war was inevitable.   A "shock and awe" strategy was absolutely the wrong way to liberate a country.

Boy, that sure does seem to be a contradiction.   It was inevitable, but it was the wrong way to go about doing things?   What should they have done, Clausewitz?

PS: "Shock and awe", seemed to work well in eliminating Saddam, just as it worked well in toppling Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.   It's what is done after that is the key.

However, the war machine refuses to see large numbers of American soldiers coming home in body bags- which is very understandable.

Considering that the American's have lost more soldiers in a few days taking small atolls and islands in the Pacific, I'm not sure where your getting this idea of "large numbers of casualties".   They've been fighting around the globe for 3 years now and they've lost what, around 1,000 troops.   Check your history books.

You can never fight a military war on terrorists.

Ask the last 5 or so leaders of the Hamas that.   Of course military assets are necessary to fight an enemy using terrorist techniques.   War can be said to be fought on 3 levels; the physical, the mental, and the moral.   Using military force inappropriately with regards to the context of the battle will lead to failure (flattening the Vietnamese countryside to liberate it), but military force can be used on any level to gain an advantage on a terrorist enemy providing that it is utilized according to the disposition of the enemy (ie: a quick and lethal strike by a UAV or a SF team may be better then moving in a battalion of Marines).

Stop alienating and destroying the economy of other countries (at no or marginal economic costs to you), stop the concept that collateral damage in the thousands is an acceptable measure in war, and stop believing that you are the only player on the world stage and you'll be amazed at how fast the terrorists will diminish in numbers.

Boy, if it was only that easy hey - would it be better if we sang "It's a Small World After All..."   as well?     :

Any more pronouncements from the armchair?

or the fact that, while flawed at best, the US is one of a few number of countries that offers true civil liberties.

Flawed?   Move to North Korea and tell me about flawed civil liberties....

 

[Morgs]

As I was sitting in the CFRC Toronto waiting for my interview to start, the TV was switched on for a brief period of time and we learnt that Kerry had officially conceded to Bush.

I wasn't sure whether to post this in politics, current affairs or the Canadian Army, so sorry if this is the wrong place.

As a prospective candidate for the Canadian Forces I was wondering what this is going to mean for me, us (the Canadian Forces) specifically, and Canadians in general, in the long run? I've tried to find out a lot of information on this subject. I've researched into things from future deployments to the â Å“Star Warsâ ? program, but so far I have been coming up short.

Hope you can help!

Thanks, Morgs

 

[Ty]

You wingnuts are all taking that statement completely out of context.   It was directed to the fact that by Mr Bush being elected ensures that the War on Terror will be persecuted 110% for the next four years.   If you don't believe me, I can introduce you to some American service men and they can tell you what they've been doing for the last 3.

I believe you- his administration is determined to continue the war on terror.   For the most part, I believe their inintentions are genuine.   The context of my post was two-fold: the war on terror is not a conventional war where you can identify an enemy and destroy him; and that the apparent statement that terrorists are now worse off for Bush being elected president is false(IMO) on a general scale.

Massacre?    ???

I don't recall pits full of Iraqi's executed by American soldiers being dug up.

:

My mistake- an inappropriate use of that word and I apologize. I was referring to significant and gruesome collateral damage thatt I believe was excessive. In any case, "massacre" was an inappropriate description and I regret using it.

Boy, that sure does seem to be a contradiction.   It was inevitable, but it was the wrong way to go about doing things?   What should they have done, Clausewitz?

PS: "Shock and awe", seemed to work well in eliminating Saddam, just as it worked well in toppling Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini.   It's what is done after that is the key.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood- my point was that the correct strategy would have been very casualty intensive towards the American forces.   The liberation of a country is as much a "hearts and minds" campaign as one of military prowess.   While the heavy use of ordnance no doubt soften enemy forces, it also has a very unfortunate side effect of harming   a good deal of people you're supposed to be helping.   Hence my disagreement with "shock and awe" - that is not to say it hasn't been successful in the past and can be in the future in certain scenarios.

Considering that the American's have lost more soldiers in a few days taking small atolls and islands in the Pacific, I'm not sure where your getting this idea of "large numbers of casualties".   They've been fighting around the globe for 3 years now and they've lost what, around 1,000 troops.   Check your history books.

That was my point- the current strategy is to minimize losses to American soldiers, which is a major goal of any force, however, to do so, they have employed strategies that imposed significant collateral damage.

Ask the last 5 or so leaders of the Hamas that.   Of course military assets are necessary to fight an enemy using terrorist techniques.   War can be said to be fought on 3 levels; the physical, the mental, and the moral.   Using military force inappropriately with regards to the context of the battle will lead to failure (flattening the Vietnamese countryside to liberate it), but military force can be used on any level to gain an advantage on a terrorist enemy providing that it is utilized according to the disposition of the enemy (ie: a quick and lethal strike by a UAV or a SF team may be better then moving in a battalion of Marines).

Again I failed to make my point- I have no doubt that the US can wipe out Al-Qaeda, Hamas, or numerous other terrorist groups.   However, to extend my previous analogy, it is the same as wiping out the KKK to exterminate racism.   You can destroy an organization with military will, but not a concept.  

Boy, if it was only that easy hey - would it be better if we sang "It's a Small World After All..."   as well?     :

Any more pronouncements from the armchair?

No one said it was easy, it is actually much harder to commit to nation building and a genuine "war on terror" in which the root causes of terrorism are addresesed rathaddressedbark on a pure milltary campaimilitaryfor "pronouncements from the armchair", I've actually experienced first-hand both civil and international war (as well as living through them, I've lost family and friends), so I do have some experience in the matter.

Flawed?   Move to North Korea and tell me about flawed civil liberties....

I was defending the US in that statement.   I don't bleive that America- nor any other country- has an ideal democrracy.   The point I was trying to make was that it is a far cry better than most of the world- I believe we're on the same page with this one.

 

[Ty]

I won't go into any long winded political diatribes, I don't have any. Bush waged the most decisive campaign mounted in years. He won a majority for his trouble. My gut tells me he was the best choice of the time, given Kerry and Nader as his opponents. He has my support, and whether our ponce, panty waist lieberal gov't likes it or not, for the good of both countries, they better displace their playground attitude and get on with the business of working together.

If it's one thing I admire about the man, it's his decisiveness- a trait I'm afraid has gone by the wayside in our leaders attempting to make everyone happy all the time.  As for your comment regrading Canadian and US relations- Amen!  The US is our largest military and economic partner, regardless of politics, we have to work together in trade and defence.  Not to say we can't disagree about world issues, just that we have to be adult about it.

 

[1feral1]

My mistake- an inappropriate use of that word and I apologize. I was referring to significant and gruesome collateral damage thatt I believe was excessive. In any case, "massacre" was an inappropriate description and I regret using it.

Signifigant gruesome collateral damage?

The US are trying to fight a war in a politically correct world avoiding as much damage as they can. If this war was prosecuted IAW wars of the past, Baghad would look like Berlin in 1945.

I consider the US are fighting this war with their hands tied.

I reckon you have some other agenda here, and are no doubt disappointed Sen. Kerry did not win the election.

TA, instead of applying for DEO entry, have you ever considered a career in politics? I am sure you would do well there.

Excuse me for firing off a mag or two here, but its comments like this whuch really urk me to no end :

Semi-disgusted,

Wes

 

[Ty]

Signifigant gruesome collateral damage?
The US are trying to fight a war in a politically correct world avoiding as much damage as they can. If this war was prosecuted IAW wars of the past, Baghad would look like Berlin in 1945.
I consider the US are fighting this war with their hands tied.

Agreed- both internal and international eyes are on the US.  However, one can not deny the damage being done to the population at large.  If I am mistaken here, please correct me.  If it is impossible to achieve an occupation of a country without the use of "Shock and Awe" than I am wrong and I will be the first to admit it.

I reckon you have some other agenda here, and are no doubt disappointed Sen. Kerry did not wain the election.
TA, instead of applying for DEO entry, have you ever considered a career in politics? I am sure you would do well there.

Like I said, I am not against Bush nor pro-Kerry only the decisions they make.  I don't believe that Kerry would have had the fortitude to do anything in Iraq or to respond to the terrorist threat at any level, at the same time, I believe that Bush is not reacting properly and have posed my theoretical and possibly idealistic and impossible solutions.  If the latter is true, than, like I said, I'm wrong.

I have applied to the CF in order to serve my country and contribute to the nation that I believed gave me a second chance.  I am fiercely proud to be Canadian and will defend our nation if called to do so.  If you disagree with my opinions, that's your prerogative and a right that I'm willing to die to protect, but please don't mock my sincerity or dedication or desire to serve in what I believe is the finest armed force in the world. 

 

[pappy]

I'd think since the election is over and Bush won this thread is a moot point.  ;D  Go Bush

 

[winchable]

I'd think since the election is over and Bush won this thread is a moot point.    Go Bush

Herehere, I think this thread is already longer than the one discussing our own election.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Herehere, I think this thread is already longer than the one discussing our own election.

What was more important? 

 

[1feral1]

Agreed- both internal and international eyes are on the US.   However, one can not deny the damage being done to the population at large.   If I am mistaken here, please correct me.   If it is impossible to achieve an occupation of a country without the use of "Shock and Awe" than I am wrong and I will be the first to admit it.

TA, Shock and awe is a media generated term, and the media in this war are only reporting what THEY want you to hear, and what they deem will get coverage for ratings. If they removed the media for one month, they could accomplish more in that time than in 6 months!

The element of shock and suprise is a more realistic term. To pound the EN into submission buy hitting him hard, fast and furious.

Sadly, civvy casualties are a a part of the insanity of any war, which can never be avoided and we know that some have been killed by collateral damage, etc. However a gutless EN using children and others civilans as human shields is yet another kettle of fish. Using religious buildings as firebases in areas filled with civilians is a cowards way to fight.

Roadside bombs, deleiberate suicide bombers attacking kids, schools, police, and Iraqi and allied military posts and the general populus being held at ransom, extorted, threatened, intimidated and murdered by cowards with AKs and RPGs are causing more casualites then realised. The US are not at fault for these, as again the rule of the insanity of war prevails.

What do you suggest?

Remember this too, there is more good things happening there then the media lets on.

As for what you refering as being mocked, consider it constructive critisim, so pull your head in, and if you can't take a bit of that, you won't last long in your intended career   :.

As for the dying and defending, etc, listen I've been in two systems for too long, (for the record, check out both army.ca and msn profiles before you go lecturing me) so give it a break. Your not talking to some 19yr old. If ya wanna publically have a go a me, fine I don't give a stuff.

If ya wanna bark at me more, PM me.

Wes

 

[pbi]

Initially, not very much IMHO. Any US President has to take care of domestic issues first (even if he achieves this by pursuing what appear to be foreign policy issues...) It was a US President (Truman....?) who said "Foreign policy is just domestic politics with its hat on...". Bush will of course be grateful for any additional military and security assistance we might offer, but then we've already stated in the most recent Throne Speech that we intend to do that, so it would have  been the same situation if Kerry had been elected: we'll do what we can fiscally and politically afford to do. Bush has never, IMHO, demonstrated much awareness of Canada, which is not untypical of many US folk who live south of the border states. I wouldn't expect that to change much. Our future as a force is really where it usually is (and should be...) in the hands of our Govt and people. Cheers.

 

[dutchie]

Just to back up what Wes said (I never thought this would happen)....

You can debate the validity of the war TA, but you are dead wrong on how war should be fought. You must, in any war, bring the maximum amount of violence and destruction upon the enemy, using any and all means necessary and available to you until either the complete destruction or surrender of the enemy is achieved. To do anything less is not war. You either fight the war, or you do not.

 

[a_majoor]

To say the war was fought "incorrectly" or "Stupidly" is a pretty rash statement. Where in history do you find a relatively small expeditionary force invading a country half way around the world, facing an armed force almost 10 times larger and defeating an entire nation in three weeks? "Shock and Awe" may be a media term, but it certainly seems to have worked.

The post invasion chaos is hardly surprising, and the coallition needs to be given credit for putting a lid on a lot of this, especially since the war plan was based on almost seven weeks of fighting. Many of the special troops needed for the occupation were literally "on the boat" when they were needed.

The figures for Iraqi casualties seem to be the gruesome and unattributed figures being spread around by the "Get George Bush" crowd, and I have never seen any figures from reputable sources even close to the ones cited at the beginning of the thread. Most of the casualties Iraqis are suffering now are from the Jihadis, who are trying to drive out the coallition, and using force to gain control of local neighborhoods and deter cooperation with either the coallition or the democratic movement in Iraq. The US is responding intelligently given difficult circumstances. If any other nation's troops were being shot at from a hospital or Mosque, they would probably flatten the place. American troops are not, and finding alternative means to grind the enemy down (there is a related thread in Army.ca about a Marine Scout /Sniper platoon taking battle to the Jihadis in a difficult urban battle).

Finally since this thread is Bush vs Kerry, how did John Kerry propose to deal with the problem of Ba'athist Iraq's regional and nuclear ambitions, or their demonstrated support of terrorism? I bet you can go back over a years worth of political literature, and realise there never was an answer, only some poll driven flavor of the week. At least President Bush had clearly outlined strategic goals, and is sticking to them.

 

[Ty]

Well, I said it and now I'm going to have to suck it up.  I was wrong!  I hate being wrong, I hate being told I'm wrong, but I hate being ignorant and chugging along without listening to what people who know what they're talking about have to say.  And what they've said is" TA, you F&*(**&, you're so wrong."  Just to wrap up my diatribe, my viewpoints were not meant to criticize American troops, just the strategies being employed in the war.  What I've learned is that a decision was made for action in Iraq (I was always for action in Iraq) and that the direct, inevitable result of that was the military using the best strategy to accomplish its goals.  While I abhor the civilian deaths, I also see that this is a result of this strategy.  I hate it, but it's war- and war is not to be loved, tolerated, or excused- but accepted as an unfortunate part of the world we live in.  Facts that I'm going to have to come to grips with if I am to succeed in my new (tentative )profession.

So, without further wasting bandwidth with my soapbox theatre, I thank all those who've made that clear to me.  As always, IM and e-mails wising to discuss further are always welcome.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Good post, TA.
I would just like to point something out to those who decry the "collateral damage" thing.
Remember some of the people posting here{myself not included thank God] have been to places and seen exactly what
"real collateral damage" is. My brother-in-law still wont talk to me about his Rwanda/Uganda experience. After all these years he still just wants to forget.
Just so some of the "newers" know where some of these soldiers have been.  Thanks