General discussion

Locked

So What is the DMC's problem - with GWB visiting Iraqi that takes some guts

By JimHM ·
OK GWB went off to Bagdad to thank the troops - and celebrate Thanksgiving. Great treat for those serving in the theater when the Commander and Chief comes.

So then the DMC - starts crying - "It was all political." - "It was for next years election." - Yadada - But at the same time they had two over in Afghan - Billary and someone else - I guess she was there to AID the Morale of the Troops by going down on each of them?

The DMC - has nothing better to do the critize some other polictal party for doing the same thing they are doing... I think they are PO'ed for being Upstaged - by a better man

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

156 total posts (Page 2 of 16)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

They are not that good over there, just lucky sometimes.

by Oz_Media In reply to Not Practical?

I agree with your claims about Rocket Propelled Grenades, it would take a pretty sharp shot to hit AF1.

Your assumption of the enemy is typically underestimated. As you know, the saying goes "never underestimate your enemy".

Reports from Baghdad have had military commanders saying that this is NOT Iran, these people are trained and major casualties are ineveitable before this war is over.

Not exactly the malnourished and poorly trained Taliban that you faced last time.

Collapse -

"never underestimate your enemy".

by mrbill- In reply to Not Practical?

Even hitting the Blackhawk in the dark required luck. They are well trained, but they are not innocent citizens but combatants. Many Taliban fighters trained with the Iraqi forces, at the time they were going by a different name. The group that tried to hit the two convoys were Fetehin (sp?) not regular troops. These guys were the ones who trained with the terrorist organizations.

Collapse -

"never underestimate your enemy".

by mrbill- In reply to Not Practical?

Even hitting the Blackhawk in the dark required luck. They are well trained, but they are not innocent citizens but combatants. Many Taliban fighters trained with the Iraqi forces, at the time they were going by a different name. The group that tried to hit the two convoys were Fetehin (sp?) not regular troops. These guys were the ones who trained with the terrorist organizations.

Collapse -

"never underestimate your enemy".

by mrbill- In reply to Not Practical?

Even hitting the Blackhawk in the dark required luck. They are well trained, but they are not innocent citizens but combatants. Many Taliban fighters trained with the Iraqi forces, at the time they were going by a different name. The group that tried to hit the two convoys were Fetehin (sp?) not regular troops. These guys were the ones who trained with the terrorist organizations.

Collapse -

All right Mr. Bill

by Oz_Media In reply to Not Practical?

Got it the first time :-)

Damn discussion threads!

Did you have a siezure while submitting?

Collapse -

Oops! Sorry...

by mrbill- In reply to Not Practical?

Yea I posted thhat as I was leaving work and it sat there for a few minutes then I stopped IE. When I checked from the training center I go to I saw all those posts. Hey it was important stuff, right.

Collapse -

I'm sure. . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to Hm

...there are plenty of people who agree with your risk assessment and would conclude that it was poor judgement to expose the President to such an amount of risk, regardless of the level. And I can understand the sentiment, although I don't share it. I suppose I'm just more risk tolerant.

(Be responsible for one's self in life? Too risky, say the Dems.)

Presidents have gone to war zones before, and it's usually a huge boost for troop morale; it obviously was in this case. President Lincoln went to a war zone and gave a little address to the folks there - the Gettysburgh Address. President Johnson visited troops in Vietnam. President Bush genuinely cares about the troops over there, and he did everything he could to show them as much.

I think it was a risk well worth taking. Besides, considering all the circumstances and all the precautions that were surely taken, the risk was most likely, at best, very minimal.

Collapse -

Yes, I see your point, too

by Cactus Pete In reply to I'm sure. . . .

But this is a very different war than we've seen before. In Iraq, the resistence is now using terrorist tactics. This is the most difficult type of war against which to protect oneself.

As to risk aversion - I'm fairly liberal with it. However, I do draw the line. I don't carol through well known gang areas in Chicago to spread Christmas cheer to those less fortunate than me. But I do ride the adrenaline boost of a mountain bike down a precarious slope.

The latter might break my arm. But I've taken really good security measures to keep my life relatively safe. The former, well, a helmet won't protect me from a stray bullet that had missed its drive by target...

I don't think that many security meaures in Iraq would have been able to prevent someone from saying, "Hey look, a big plane landing - let's see if we can hit it from here."

We know this is going on, and I think the leader of this nation should consider the nation and what his office means to the citizens before trapsing off where harm is quite likely. Just as I consider my family before I venture off into the slums...

Collapse -

Protect the president

by Oz_Media In reply to Hm

But screw your kids?

The President is sure enough that Iraq is being saved, the people all love him, there are a few bad apples but they will also be caught.

So why all the fear of the President visiting Iraq? Don't you have Iraq under control now? Isn't the major fight over? Isn't America the most powerful force in the world with the BEST military known to man?

I'd have stayed at home if I were Bush, this is just his way of showing how much he cares, although he didn't talk to the Iraqi's several of whom just down the road who commented that he didn't ask THEM what they thought, he didn't address any Iraqi issues with his ONE visit since the invasion. I dunno about you but if I was an Iraqi and the guy who'd ordered my country invaded in MY best interests was in town, I'd have a few questions too, especially after taking a look around.

Collapse -

Believe it or not ...

by jardinier In reply to 9-11 versus Thanksgiving

it's exactly the sort of thing I would do: spontaneous and unexpected. (That's Julian the person speaking, not President Julian).

Was it a good thing to do? I haven't read any argument here that states other than it proved to be a good thing to do.

Was it a bad thing to do? Again I have not read any statement which convinces me it was a bad thing to do.

Whas it staged for propaganda? Well surely it is the prerogative of a government or its leader to use propaganda to further its cause.

Was it declared beforehand to be an investigative study of the state of the war? No it was not.

So it appears to me that (1) it was a good thing to do (2) it was not a bad thing to do (3) any discussion of ulterior motives remain speculative.

Back to Community Forum
156 total posts (Page 2 of 16)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums