What Does Obama Deserve

1. 80

   LiamBeanposted 14 years ago

   To pick up where we left off.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Same thing happened here in Los Angeles. Bet you there won't be as much complaining if we ever get the chance again. Many here benefited a great deal.
      
      
      
      Therefore they should not host Olympic games?
      
      
      
      Of course. And Iran has nothing to do with this. Iran is not Israel or Palestine.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Just correcting your error.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            No error was made.
            
            Chicago was founded in 1833.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Well, it wasn't actually incorporated until '37.
               
               Which hardly makes it "one of our oldest historic cities." Hence the error.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Your claiming an error does not make it so. Much like Limbaugh claiming a failure does not make it so. Much like Beck claiming the Peace Prize is a joke does not make it so.
                  
                  Hope that clears things up for you, but I doubt it.
                  
                  
                  
                  If Israel allows Iran to dictate it's internal policies then it's Israel's problem not Iran's. There are Israelis smart enough and brave enough to realize this.
                  
                  
                  
                  Ah another nugget of "wisdom." Please explain then, how Los Angeles generated a two hundred million dollar profit in 1984 dollars.
                  
                  
                  
                  Where are you going with that? Are you implying that I have better character than you?
                  
                  You certainly take his presidency personally. Is there a problem?
                  
                  Let me explain something in no uncertain terms. For eight years, despite blunder after blunder and misstep after misstep you on the right insisted that we stand behind the president.
                  
                  Yet when someone from the other party wins you heap insult upon insult and falsehood upon falsehood upon the office. You only respect it if one of your own is in there. No matter how badly they managed the office while there.
                  
                  All you prove with this attitude is that your displeasure has nothing at all to do with who is at the helm and everything to do with "your team."
                  
                  This isn't a football game. 
                  
                  I don't insist that you respect the office. Clearly that is beyond you. But I do think you can keep your displeasure to yourself, as I did, until things change and you can start screwing things up again.
                  
                  The state of the economy is clearly the fault of the previous administration no matter how many times you say it isn't. The situation in Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan is clearly the fault of the previous administration no matter how many times you claim otherwise.
                  
                  These are givens. But rather than fess up and admit that you supported someone who put us where we are now, you are attempting to place the blame where it does not belong.
                  
                  Which is an amazingly stupid thing for these people to do. It will come back to bite your party firmly on the arse. It is already happening. The Republican party is "objecting" itself into obscurity. And the talking heads on the right are pushing the Republicans over the cliff.
                  
                  I think that's a shame, because the nation needs both points of view.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     If I had supported Bush after his first term then you may have had a point, but I didn't. The economy is not just the fault of the last administration it is the fault of many administrations, but you're too partisan to see it.
                     
                     I take this Presidency personally because this Presidents goals effect me personally/financially, you may be one of those who will benefit from a redistribution of wealth, I am not.
                     
                     Your inability to see that Obama's economic plan is having an effect for the negative is amazing, unemployment continues to rise because no one has confidence in his policies! You cannot spend yourself into wealth, just doesn't work!

                     replyreport
                     1. 80

                        LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        He's been in office nine months. Unemployment is a direct effect of the Bush administration and continued tax cuts while starting and continuing two multi-trillion dollar wars.
                        
                        
                        
                        So no one spending on anything is the route to wealth?
                        
                        You are sadly misinformed.

                        replyreport
                  2. 86

                     livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Sad, but true. The irony that the party of beat-your-chest patriotism only too happily becomes a bunch of turncoats when "their guy" isn't in office isn't lost on many of us.
                     Exactly. Fortunately, there is enough sensible debate between the two sides of the Democrats to avoid having to listen to the irrational, paranoid ramblings of today's GOP.

                     replyreport
      2. 60

         tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Obviously Iran has an enormous amount to do with this but I didn't bring them up, you did.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Iran has NOTHING to do with peace in Israel. Or rather, only as much as Israel allows it to have.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               That is simply untrue. Are you really uninformed of the situation, or is this part of some agenda?

               replyreport
      3. 60

         tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1002/p02s04-usgn.html
         
         "The 1976 Olympics left Montreal with a $1 billion debt, which the province of Quebec fully paid off only in 2006. Australian taxpayers pay $32 million a year to maintain Sydney Olympic venues that now go largely unused. The projected budget for London 2012 was $3.9 billion; it's now $15.1 billion and climbing."

         replyreport
         1. 80

            LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            I guess we got "lucky." Actually, luck had NOTHING to do with it. When we hosted the Olympics the first time it was costly. The second time it made a profit.
            
            Los Angeles made a two hundred million dollar profit in 1984.
            
            Boy was that ever a financial burden.
            
            So in essence Limbaugh is delighted that Chicago missed out on a potential profit of $200,000,000.
            
            I thought he believed in free-enterprise. Am I wrong?

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Deny reality all you want but the fact is that the cost of hosting the games has grown exponentially for decades and is now a heavy and long-lasting economic burden for the host city. Claiming otherwise won't change that.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Friendlywordposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  replyreport
   2. 61

      Margie01posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      He needs to go back and take "leadership 101"; he was not and is not ready to be a President (of anything)!

      replyreport
      1. 80

         LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         What would you know about it?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            You sure take criticism of Obama personally, are you related?

            replyreport
      2. 60

         Place Kickposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         replyreport
   3. 61

      dutchman1951posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      He is not in tune with American Needs, he does have some values, family, sucess, but he is an opertunist, an idealist with a Radical background, and he can not be the President for "All" america, he seems to have some hidden point to prove or shove at America, to make it his way. Thats no good
      
      He deserves to be Voted Out, no second terms, no more radical foolishness. We need jobs, we need freedoms. And Defense of our Country. thats it! the rest is up to us as Individuals.
      
      He deserves nothing from us, He ran for the Office under false Hope, he needs to take his Chicago crap and leave! And take the legislators with him.
      
      There are very nice Islands in the Caribe', for sale and he and his Buds need to get on one and make their own Idealistic Harvardite- socialite world. His idealisms, ideas that the Constitution is flawed- are wrong. He is mis-applying History lessons.
      
      He is a profit of self opertunity in disquise of welfare for all. He is a power monger, and self-arogantly drunk on the Office title, but he is not his own man. In other words a cmplete contradiction of terms. FALSE! A Puppet Executive.
      
      And we "all" of us (all races) are loosing under his so called ecletcic guidance. He deserves to leave, period!
      
      
      Sorry to be so direct, but I have lost faith in him from watching his actions, and researching why. Its no good.
      
      Jon

      replyreport
      1. 86

         livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         (This should be amusing) Who do you suggest replace him?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            A tree stump would be more effective!

            replyreport
            1. 60

               tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Yeah, Joe Biden would.

               replyreport
            2. 86

               livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I certainly hope the GOP does nominate Sarah Palin.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right, she would be better!

                  replyreport
                  1. 86

                     livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Well, I'm glad she has your vote. Should make for an *ahem* interesting 2012 campaign!

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't think the mudstomping Obama gets will be interesting.

                        replyreport
                        1. 86

                           livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                           Oh, believe me, plenty of us will find it very interesting. Can't keep a great woman down, huh?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                              Too bad it wont be a majority of you.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                 I think the results of the election will make those Democrats come around and have new respect for Palin. Maybe not in a way that you intended.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                    I am not pushing for Sarah Palin, I just said she would be better than Obama. I think the preview of 2012 will occur in a just about 13 months, stay tuned.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 80

                                       LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                       Could be. There might be another Republican revolution. But it is highly debatable. With the likes of Limbaugh and Beck it could be a route...for the GOP.

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          A Texanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          You sure have it in for Limbaugh and Beck, must be because they are effective.

                                          report
                                          1. 80

                                             LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                             I have it in for Limbaugh and Beck because if their lips are moving they are lying.
                                             
                                             Let me give you an example.
                                             
                                             How many times did you beat your wife today A Texan?
                                             
                                             This is a typical Beck question. How do you answer it without looking like a fool? It doesn't matter that there's not an ounce of truth to it. That the question was asked immediately throws the person it's asked of into a negative light.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             Of course not. It's still a personal attack even if the person attacked is not there to read it.
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                             Then apply them evenly. It damages your own credibility to insist that everyone observe the rules and in the very next sentence make some snide remark.
                                             
                                             Now I know this response may seem like I'm chiding you, but I'm not. Just pointing out how this appears to me...and possibly others.

                                             report
                                             1. 60

                                                tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                The rule against personal attack refers to communication between members here, not comments about public figures. Surely you knew this.

                                                report
                                                1. 80

                                                   LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                   We shall see won't we?
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                   No typically you make inflammatory remarks about a third party. Typically Obama. This is an excellent way to end civil communication and discourse.
                                                   
                                                   I can only assume that civil discourse is not something you are seeking.
                                                   
                                                   I am.
                                                   
                                                   There are a number of things I could call Bush. I haven't. I've merely pointed out his misteps and errors. Especially the most costly ones.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 60

                                                      tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                      We shall see what?

                                                      report
                                                   2. 60

                                                      tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                      No, really, the rule is not about comments on public figures. You could ask the moderators to clarify that if you really need to but I don't believe you do.
                                                      
                                                      If you were to remove every 'personal attack' against politicians there would be virtually nothing left here!

                                                      report
                                                      1. 80

                                                         LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                         I don't think it's necessary to name call in order to point out a misstep or error.
                                                         
                                                         For example today I read an editorial about Obama's public face. The author basically said he's entirely too visible. Something FDR realized and cut back on.
                                                         
                                                         I'm not a television news junkie. I get my news in print (paper or Internet) so I wasn't aware that he's been making so many public appearances.
                                                         
                                                         This is clearly a problem. If an elected official is out there too much it's seen as pushy and intrusive.
                                                         
                                                         There, now I've faulted Obama and I did not have to call him names to do so.

                                                         report
                                             2. 60

                                                tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                                If you see any comments of mine you consider personal attacks against  you please feel free to let me know and I'll explain or retract them as appropriate.
                                                
                                                Thank you.

                                                report
                                       2. 86

                                          livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                                          With the leading candidates tripping over themselves to sound as ignorant as possible, I don't see much hope of them waking up before 2016. Maybe they'll regroup like the Dems did in the 80s after a couple of humiliating defeats.

                                          report
      2. 80

         LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Nine months in office and he's a failure. Amazing!
         
         Guys. You really need to do some independent thinking. Hell, it was just over four years before I decided that Bush was a failure.  At least I gave him a chance.
         
         After 9/11 I was behind anything Bush did or asked congress to do. He abused the advantage and that's when he lost my support.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            What makes you think anyone is NOT doing "some independent thinking"?
            
            Claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is not thinking for themselves or is uninformed or misled or some such nonsense is a completely empty argument <snipped - no personal attacks in the Forums>.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Dude or dudette. I write stuff for a wide audience and somehow someway it always ends up being about you.
               
               Well this is for you. You are not the only person responding to threads on this topic. It is NOT all about you.
               
               However, that said, trying to pillory the president after a mere nine months is more indicative of your own failings not his.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  So, nine months is too soon? When is it time for the chosen one to take of the training wheels already? Please be specific.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     I thought you were against personal attacks?
                     
                     "the chosen one?"
                     
                     "training wheels?"
                     
                     I'll be specific. You insist that you are treated with dignity and respect, but do not seem to know how to apply it to others.
                     
                     There's my response.
                     
                     By all means complain about "personal attacks." I'm certain yours will be viewed with both astonishment and humor...just prior to a three day ban.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                        Um, you know I was referring to Obama, right? Did you assume YOU were "the chosen one"?
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        Oh, and I do not insist on being treated with dignity and respect at all. I'd be just as happy to have you say what you want about me for all I care. I merely note that if rules are to be applied they ought to be applied uniformly.

                        replyreport
            2. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               That sounds like a personal attack to me. Reported as such.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  You'll note I was referring to the thinking expressed and not to the value or intelligence of the individual involved. I agree we should avoid personal attacks. God bless your for your vigilance.

                  replyreport
         2. 55

            atomswifeyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Because in those short nine months he and not him alone but Pelosi and Reed the dems in congress prior to the election have turned our country into a welfare state!
            Making people actually think that the government in any way shape or form should have more control than WE THE PEOPLE!
            
            Think about this Liam and please put your bias of me being a Christian radical aside for a minute, think about this..
            Do you really think it is perfectly ok for our government to have fired the head of GM and taken over the company? Do you think that should be the norm? Even if the company is failing it is not ever right for a government body to do that! Think of the implications of that action.
            Our government was not meant to EVER have that much control.
            And did it work even? Did it really solve anything? No. I live in the state where over 300,000 GM workers lost jobs I have friends and family who have been put on welfare as a result of all of this! And it was not Bush who gave the go ahead for such a stupid policy, it was his administration and congress!
            
            I blame congress just as much if not more for what has happened. And people who are falling for it are just either blind or have to agree now with their choice they voted for. Not that all the people who voted are now happy with their choice. Rather, we are seeing a turn of the tide since all sides from all the aisles are seeing what a detriment to our country he really is. And when we all are forced into a GLOBAL system which undermines our free and independent liberty, what then?
            
            Our country was first and foremost a republic. A republic as defined on wiki is as follows:
            A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government
            Not the other way around! Our government is now poised to be the complete and total opposite of a republic.
            It is now the government which is having a great impact on its people and this man the voice to which the people have given him the status of a monarch!
            With such statements as "our great HOPE", " Our salvation in these times". People have put such an overwhelming amount of trust in someone who has not in any way proven himself worthy enough for such adoration, faith or trust.
            That to me is something of an enigma. How come we did that of someone who
            1 had never served in the military
            2. had only a few years of so called "experience" in the senate and
            3. Whose background is riddled with numerous ties to domestic terrorists, racists, criminals, etc.
            
            And now when in these short nine months we have seen this come to be, if you take a frog and stick it in hot water it jumps out right away, but if you put the same frog in cold water and slowly turn up the heat it will sit there and boil to death.
            
            This is what is happening to our country. It has sat in the cold water which has now become increasingly hotter. The changes he has brought to the temperature are not as unnoticeable as one might assume however and there are those who are feeling the affects of the heat on them and jumping out (as in the tea parties and other voices of reason against it) and then there are others being those frogs who are just sitting around not realizing the temperatures are rising rapidly.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               That's a lot of lies to cram into one post.  Maybe pace yourself a little?

               replyreport
2. 73

   Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago

   Another country

   replyreport
3. 0

   A Texanposted 14 years ago

   What redistribution of wealth? I guess you said it so it must be true.
   
   Unemployment? Don't have a clue doya?
   
   Spend yourself into wealth? Uh huh, I see, you would be the beneficiary of his policies.
   
   Forget it!

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Talking to yourself?
      
      
      
      Putting words in my mouth do not make them my words. Jeeze, don't you guys have any other ways to debate? Because I tell you, saying I don't have a clue about unemployment, when I know full well that's going on, is not a debate.
      
      
      
      
      Forget you.
      
      I do not benefit from any of his policies. I most certainly objected, and still do, to the bank bailout. That certainly didn't help me or hundreds of thousands of home-owners who are now "upside down" on their mortgages.
      
      Now did the president order a bail-out or was it Congress. Because I tell you, if Obama is making law it's news to me. As president he can propose legislation, but he can't make it.
      
      But I tell you, they shouldn't have gotten help and neither should the banks. You buy a home and you take a risk. You invest in a particular market and you take a risk.
      
      I know, I've been a home-owner twice. And I sold both homes, at a slight loss, because a) I moved and b) it was obvious that as nest-eggs they weren't working. e.g. I took a risk and paid for that risk.
      
      But apparently if you screw up bad enough there's no real risk.

      replyreport
4. 73

   Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago

   Its been like that in the USA for years n years...
   
   Rich get richer
   Poor get poorer ,which always equals uneven distribution of wealth.
   
   The middle class is/will disappear.
   
   Shame really.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      The right knows this full well. Try to get them to admit it though.

      replyreport
5. 55

   atomswifeyposted 14 years ago

   LiamBean Wrote: He's been in office nine months. Unemployment is a direct effect of the Bush administration and continued tax cuts while starting and continuing two multi-trillion dollar wars.
   ------------------------------------------------------------
   
   Sorry you are very wrong there
   We have in this country a defense fund dear and it has more than enough in it to sustain and supply our troops at a time of war.
   
   Our economy fell due to a multitude of reasons but the most damming were the housing and banking markets. It was a run away train which Bush and McCain both tried to stop.
   
   The dems and of course your Messiah who was a senator then did nothing to try to stop it as they are in want of a global system of government where they would lead.
   How do you do that? You strip mine the masses of their life and liberty. How do you do that?
   Offer worthless tokens in exchange for oppression.
   
   But I will explain it better this way...
   
   We had a little thing introduced in the 70's under Carter called "  Community Reinvestment Act " This seemed like a great idea in the beginning making home ownership a possibility to a broader range of people.
   However the banks in these cases were forced to approve loans to people they would have otherwise turned down due to their lack of credit worthiness as well as their lack of ability to actually pay.
   
   This became even more of a problem in the 90's under clinton  who made the banks even "looser" in their lending criteria! This was a very bad judgement call but all part of a bigger plan. As Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were given the go ahead to buy these loans from the banks, foreclose and restructure them to resale.
   
   Good for awhile until it all came to a head and backfired. Or has it? Maybe its done exactly what was intended.
   
   Anyway, this problem did not start with Bush or his policies! Under Bush, the unemployment rate was the LOWEST it had ever been in history. Bush tried to to stop the housing market monster from destroying us, however congress shot it down. twice he put forth bills to regulate the banks and both times the bills were turned down.
   
   The problem started as I stated above. With the democrats wanting more power and money.
   
   Our government has grown bigger and bigger while our constitution gets thrown out the window. If thats the kind of country you want live in so be it and obviously so as Obama talks more and more about government control and globalism some people keep singing his praises.
   All the while not even understanding in the slightest anything about how economics works and how it ties into that sort of oppression.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Another silly pointless half-baked tirade from someone "in the know." This is the extent of my response to such a wildly fanciful nightmare based on...nothing.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         egivposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Hahaha I love how Reagan just happened to be forgotten in this oh-so-rich history lesson. Someone's been watching Fox News too much...

         replyreport
         1. 80

            LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Talk about a "redistribution of wealth." Between Regan and Gingrich's "Contract on America" it's a wonder there's still a middle class at all.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               livelongerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               ...not to mention George W Bush, who pushed the deficit up to a trillion dollars. And that was very recent history!
               
               The ultrareligious have a talent at making themselves believe what is patently untrue.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  Heh. Faith based voting.

                  replyreport
6. 73

   Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago

   Now did the president order a bail-out or was it Congress. Because I tell you, if Obama is making law it's news to me. As president he can propose legislation, but he can't make it.
   
   Thanks for saying that LB, because I rememeber for citizenship having to read that very fact, the function of Congress  and President etc. I guess I forgot with so many conflicting opinions in here.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Facts have nothing to do with it their ire.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Eaglekiwiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Guess not.

         replyreport
7. 73

   Eaglekiwiposted 14 years ago

   Reagan destroyed the Union and lowered the working mans wages even lower.

   replyreport
8. 0

   sneakorocksolidposted 14 years ago

   He deserves the same treatment that any president deserves, like President Bush.
   
   Hey, but thats just the position of one of the lying, stupid, unenlightened religious sheep.

   replyreport
9. 67

   awareposted 14 years ago

   8 years

   replyreport
10. 70

    TimTurnerposted 14 years ago

    He deserves nothing until he DOES something.

    replyreport
11. 0

    A Texanposted 14 years ago

    I have it in for Limbaugh and Beck because if their lips are moving they are lying.
    
    Let me give you an example.
    
    How many times did you beat your wife today A Texan?
    
    This is a typical Beck question. How do you answer it without looking like a fool? It doesn't matter that there's not an ounce of truth to it. That the question was asked immediately throws the person it's asked of into a negative light.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Ridiculous, but if you need evidence of commentators lying Google Rachel Maddow.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You know what? I don't even listen to Air America. Yes, I know that's her "network." No I don't listen to her.
       
       There is a middle ground. It doesn't start by listening to the counterpart to Beck or Limbaugh. It doesn't start by listening to Beck or Limbaugh either.

       replyreport
12. 80

    LiamBeanposted 14 years ago

    I will say this about Bush. Despite his constant mangling of the English language I came to realize this was an act of sorts. His connection to a segment of his base. He did it quite well. He always managed to be quite folksy and entertaining.
    
    I did appreciate that about him to. He was far smarter than I initially gave him credit for.
    
    I think, looking back, the one thing I can really fault him for was his willingness to hand a task to someone else and be completely hands off about it from that point on. Doing that with your military leaders is not a bad idea as long as those leaders are carrying out your orders. (Commander in Chief you see) But it's another to hand off a task to a civilian bureaucrat and not manage that person all down the line. Such was the case with Bremmer.
    
    Had Iraq been treated much the same as Germany after the war (Patton caught absolute hell for allowing former Nazis to run the factories post war, but it worked) I don't know that there would have been one roadside bomb. Instead Bremmer made it illegal to be Ba'athist and employed. A silly thing to do considering that the Ba'athists had been running everything for years and that being Ba'athist meant being employable.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Oh, I think there still would have been loads of roadside bombs. The comparison doesn't work because it doesn't factor in Iran and Al Queda. There will always be 'what if's, but keeping the baathists around might have exacerbated things with the rest of the population that had been under their boot for so long. We can't know about such speculative things since we only have the one reality before us. I reckon military and political analysts will be second guessing every detail of the war for decades to come. I reckon it's always like that.

       replyreport
       1. 80

          LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Iran saw an opportunity to raise hell in the region. Bremer* gave it to them. There was an interview with an Iraqi shortly before the decision. I believe this person had been a member of the Republican Guard. The reporter asked him what was likely to happen if he was barred from employment.
          
          Chillingly his answer was exactly what happened a few weeks later. He said there would be a revolt.
          
          That we only have the one reality before us is quite true. There is no way to know with total certainty that Bremer's Order Number 2 was at the root of the insurgency. But consider the timing. Before the order there was sporadic fighting, some looting, and general disorder. No roadside bombs though. One week after Order Number 2 and the first IED detonated.
          
          This is from the Sydney Morning Herald;
          
          http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/ … 33712.html
          
          As to Al Queda it was in Afghanistan at the time, not Iraq. Saddam didn't want Al Queda or the Taliban there. He knew how much trouble both groups would be to his rule.
          
          *It's Bremer with one "m." I've been misspelling it.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             They would have raised it one way or another no matter what we did.

             replyreport
             1. 80

                LiamBeanposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                Oh I'm sure that's true. But I contend that Bremer's decision gave them a foothold they were otherwise lacking. To put this another way Iran's involvement would have taken longer.
                
                
                
                Interesting. That could well be too. However, from what I understand, and let me know if I've got the wrong information here, when the Iraqi Army went home they took their weapons with them.
                
                Anything I would add further to the Bremer issue would just be flogging the dead horse so to speak.

                replyreport
          2. 60

             tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             It would have taken an insurgency some time to get going after the initial overthrow of the old order in any case (and for Iran to get its balls rolling), so I don't think that timing tells us anything in particular.

             replyreport
          3. 60

             tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             And there were anti-baathists making 'chilling' comments the other way as well, so again it really indicates nothing more than coincidence with events as they actually did unfold.

             replyreport
13. 62

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    To answer the title question - he deserves a happy life, as we all deserve.

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Channeling Aristotle?

       replyreport
14. 62

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    Who's that guy?

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Ron Montgomeryposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Mr. Happiness.  Lives near Sufi

       replyreport