PDA

View Full Version : meme alert: bush didn't plan


corplinx
9th September 2003, 04:30 PM
Your homework assignment tonight is to play devil's advocate for Mr. Bush and figure out why some (not all) of the "he had no plan" "he didnt plan enough for after the war" talk is just partisan spin.

Your clues:
1. How can you realisticly plan for the complete overhaul of a country that had 40 percent unemployment and needed a complete infrastructure overhaul.

2. How often does the US rebuild a country like this, it seems the only way to have a certain plan is if you had expertise in such a chaotic rebuildings. In other words, was it wise for the naysayers to think that the rebuilding of a third world country would be overnight? What does this say about their intelligence or blinders.

jj
9th September 2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
Your clues:
1. How can you realisticly plan for the complete overhaul of a country that had 40 percent unemployment and needed a complete infrastructure overhaul.

You can't. Why, therefore, did Mr. Bush suggest that we can?

2. How often does the US rebuild a country like this, it seems the only way to have a certain plan is if you had expertise in such a chaotic rebuildings. In other words, was it wise for the naysayers to think that the rebuilding of a third world country would be overnight? What does this say about their intelligence or blinders.
It says nothing about "naysayers" in fact it is purely unethical and forthrightly dishonest of you to lay that idea at the feet of the naysayers, who WERE SAYING IT WAS GOING TO BE HARD, so once again, why did Mr. Bush suggest that we COULD rebuild it overnight?

That's the problem, Corps, despite your purely unethical, defamatatory, politically motived spinning, the problems is not with (at least most of) the naysayers, who said it WOULD BE HARD, the problem is that Mr. Bush and his administration brushed aside the concerns rudely and in a way that suggested that any such questions were unamerican, and very nearly constituted support for terrorism.

You, sir, wish to punish the naysayers more, quite dishonestly and in an unAmerican fashion, FOR BEING RIGHT.

The problem is simple, Corps, why did Mr. Bush suggest that it WOULD be easy?

NOBODY has experience in such rebuilding, I don't know, in fact, if anyone has ever succeeded in doing such a job, EVER, in history, without making genocide part of the equation, something that really isn't in our plans, I hope. (No, I'm not suggesting it is, please, don't start on that straw man.) It's going to be hard at best. If I had any idea, I'd be handing it out, but not here, probably.

Malachi151
9th September 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
Your homework assignment tonight is to play devil's advocate for Mr. Bush and figure out why some (not all) of the "he had no plan" "he didnt plan enough for after the war" talk is just partisan spin.

Your clues:
1. How can you realisticly plan for the complete overhaul of a country that had 40 percent unemployment and needed a complete infrastructure overhaul.

2. How often does the US rebuild a country like this, it seems the only way to have a certain plan is if you had expertise in such a chaotic rebuildings. In other words, was it wise for the naysayers to think that the rebuilding of a third world country would be overnight? What does this say about their intelligence or blinders.

Hey guess what, that's the friggen POINT!

Fact is that people wanted more debate before going forwards with this, if at all, in order to illuminate these issues. They said that they DID have a plane and that they knew how it would all work. People said that was impossible, they shot them down and went ahead without international support and without the support of the intelligence community or the inellectuals, just the rallying ignorant American public.

There was no imminent threat, there was no need to act immediately without further planning, they lied to create and environment of fear in order to get support to hurry ahead in a foolish manner.

Anyone who cannot understand that is an idiot.

corplinx
9th September 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by Malachi151

Anyone who cannot understand that is an idiot.

Don't take it so hard kiddo. At least you're not in denial.

Tricky
9th September 2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
Your homework assignment tonight is to play devil's advocate for Mr. Bush and figure out why some (not all) of the "he had no plan" "he didnt plan enough for after the war" talk is just partisan spin.

Your clues:
1. How can you realisticly plan for the complete overhaul of a country that had 40 percent unemployment and needed a complete infrastructure overhaul.
Firstly, don't fire people. Instead of disbanding the police and security forces, hire them to continue doing their jobs. Also, make policing the main job. Get real policemen to do this, not soldiers. Endeavor, as much as possible, to keep businesses open and looting down. This may mean massive numbers of troops at first, but the reward will be a business community that is still functional and less damage to the infrastructure by looters and terrorists.

Also, support the businesses. Just like we give small businesses loans in the US, keep at least some money flowing in the economy. This is much more likely to win approval from the locals than house-to-house searches. Iraq is a very westernized country and the people want to be able to work and get paid for it.

Give troops and other workers substantial bonuses for learning Arabic. Make basic Arabic mandatory. Nothing wins trust (and prevents secrecy) like having the occupying forces able to communicate with the locals.

Make it a priority to first restore the parts of the infrastructure that were damaged by our bombing, with the exception of Saddam's palaces, which should be fenced off and forbidden to all except for searching for info/weapons. If the Iraqis see the occupation forces staying in Saddam's palaces, they may assume that this is just a new dictator.

Just a few offhand suggestions. Some may not be workable.

Originally posted by corplinx
2. How often does the US rebuild a country like this, it seems the only way to have a certain plan is if you had expertise in such a chaotic rebuildings. In other words, was it wise for the naysayers to think that the rebuilding of a third world country would be overnight? What does this say about their intelligence or blinders.
No, it is foolish to think it was going to happen overnight. Most of us "naysayers" said this from the very beginning. What is so mind-boggeling is that Bush either thought it would happen very quickly (and all to the pre-war rhetoric seems to suggest this), or he knew it would be much more difficult than he had suggested, and deliberately did not tell us.

The reason Bush is in such hot water now, is because he pumped up the conservatives with talk of defeating the enemy, but did not tell those same conservatives how much it would cost. A lot of them have come to a rude awakening, and are only now looking at the long-term financial implications of this ill-conceived war. Conservatives are not noted for their willingness to give the government their money.

jj
9th September 2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


Don't take it so hard kiddo. At least you're not in denial.

It must be nice to be so smart that you can be that un-American.

corplinx
9th September 2003, 08:05 PM
Great post Tricky.

Tricky
9th September 2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
Great post Tricky.
Thank you sir. I thought somebody ought to address your questions.

jj
9th September 2003, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Thank you sir. I thought somebody ought to address your questions.

Well, I also addressed them, but he is too concieted to accede tothat.

Tricky
9th September 2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by jj
Well, I also addressed them, but he is too concieted to accede to that.
Well, yes you did, and I apologize if I sounded like I was belittling your posts. But I could tell that Corplinx was looking for some suggestions as to what we "naysayers" would do differently. I tried to provide a few.

I consider this an important question and even though we can't do anything about what has already happened, perhaps the US could use some suggestions from those of us who feel that there was a better way to to this, about what to do in the future, or (Ed forbid) next time.

corplinx
9th September 2003, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Well, yes you did, and I apologize if I sounded like I was belittling your posts.

I have that guy on ignore. ;) That's why I didn't reply to him.

Tony
9th September 2003, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Firstly, don't fire people. Instead of disbanding the police and security forces, hire them to continue doing their jobs. Also, make policing the main job. Get real policemen to do this, not soldiers. Endeavor, as much as possible, to keep businesses open and looting down. This may mean massive numbers of troops at first, but the reward will be a business community that is still functional and less damage to the infrastructure by looters and terrorists.

Also, support the businesses. Just like we give small businesses loans in the US, keep at least some money flowing in the economy. This is much more likely to win approval from the locals than house-to-house searches. Iraq is a very westernized country and the people want to be able to work and get paid for it.

Give troops and other workers substantial bonuses for learning Arabic. Make basic Arabic mandatory. Nothing wins trust (and prevents secrecy) like having the occupying forces able to communicate with the locals.

Make it a priority to first restore the parts of the infrastructure that were damaged by our bombing, with the exception of Saddam's palaces, which should be fenced off and forbidden to all except for searching for info/weapons. If the Iraqis see the occupation forces staying in Saddam's palaces, they may assume that this is just a new dictator.

Just a few offhand suggestions. Some may not be workable.



Tricky for president!! ;)

Good ideas!!

jj
9th September 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Tricky

Well, yes you did, and I apologize if I sounded like I was belittling your posts. But I could tell that Corplinx was looking for some suggestions as to what we "naysayers" would do differently. I tried to provide a few.

I consider this an important question and even though we can't do anything about what has already happened, perhaps the US could use some suggestions from those of us who feel that there was a better way to to this, about what to do in the future, or (Ed forbid) next time.

I wish I had something constructive to offer. It's historically speaking a very difficult problem.

jj
9th September 2003, 08:35 PM
Originally posted by corplinx


I have that guy on ignore. ;) That's why I didn't reply to him.

You're a coward, and you made a false accusation because of your cowardace and unwillingness to deal with the results of your dishonorable rantings.

Tricky
9th September 2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by corplinx
I have that guy on ignore. ;) That's why I didn't reply to him.
Well, you shoudn't do that. How the heck can you know what your enemy is doing if you ignore him? Sometimes it's painful for me to read the ultra-conservative posters here, but I always do it because I cannot make a credible reply unless I know what they are saying. Jedi Knight tested my resolve, but I am proud of the fact that I never put him on "ignore" (though I confess to using "manual ignore" a few times.;))

Agammamon
10th September 2003, 07:08 AM
2. How often does the US rebuild a country like this, it seems the only way to have a certain plan is if you had expertise in such a chaotic rebuildings.

Oh, I don't know. How about England and France or maybe Japan? We do remember the aftermath of WWII right? That's three countries we had a fair role in rebuilding in the last 50 years alone.

Mr Manifesto
10th September 2003, 07:09 AM
Here (http://coldfury.com/reason/comments.php?id=P891_0_1_0) is a link to a blog which has links to warnings that Bush was ill-prepared for an Iraqi occupaton. Rather than steal this guy's research, I've just linked to his site, but don't take me to automatically agree with everything he's said.

Oh, there's a bit of swearing on the link, too.

whitefork
10th September 2003, 07:24 AM
Big country, lots of desert, extremist groups, oil, damaged infrastructure and education system....

Sounds like Texas to me. GWB can apply the same successful methods to Iraq as he did to Texas.

Problem solved.

Mr Manifesto
10th September 2003, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by Kullervo
Big country, lots of desert, extremist groups, oil, damaged infrastructure and education system....

Sounds like Texas to me. GWB can apply the same successful methods to Iraq as he did to Texas.

Problem solved.

Well, I thought he did! Oh, sorry, I mis-read your post, I thought you meant that Texan oil company he ran. Into the ground.