You're no Harry Truman ...Dubya

That would have been an interesting assignment for a West Point cadet that didn't graduate until 1956.

 

http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/sch0pro-1

All this was even on History Channel the other night.

 

Sorry, I didn't catch the father part.

 

I kinda figured as much.

 

All of this is kind of irrevelant since everyone knows we aren't about to nuke Iran - it goes against the NWO.

Also, the Bible speaks about Persia (Iran/Iraq) coming against Israel in the Battle of Armageddon.

About him comparing himself to Harry Truman..., well, consider this (perhaps he meant it in a subtle way that most people do not know about):

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/project_paperclip.htm

 

I hope not, LE. We don't need yet another Operation Wishful Thinking.

 

Ah yes, Operation Paperclip. The begining of the fourth reich.

 

In fact, Truman's plan worked as intended. The Truman Doctrine made it clear that attempts at military conquest would be met with force. The Marshall plan put an end to Communist hopes of domination in Europe. And eventually, the Soviet Empire just rusted to pieces, without a major war.

The best way to win is to do so without fighting.

 

Tell it to the North Koreans who live under oppression every day. Tell it to the missionaries that have been martyred in N Korea. Vietnam was an extension of that doctrine... where shooting for a tie didn't work out so well either.

Korea was worse than Vietnam considering casualties per year. In fact, Iraq pales in comparison to Korea... but in Korea all we accomplished was a preservation of the status quo... no enemy or potential enemy was defeated. In Iraq, we have defeated an enemy, freed a people, and are fighting those who attacked us.

Some of you all are fond of asking what the 2500+/- lives lost in Iraq have accomplished. I think you've been one of them yet here you turn around and defend a "doctrine" that resulted in over 50K American military deaths over a similar period of time to accomplish absolutely nothing.

Some are also fond of asking "Did Iraq attack us?" Well, did N Korea attack the US?

Worked as intended? Met with force? We pushed the Koreans into China then Truman forced our troops to sit and watch the Chinese masse their army for the attack and wouldn't allow bombing or artillery to break it up. Many thousands of young soldiers died because of that decision... many more than have died or are likely to die in Iraq. But somehow you muster praise for Truman while you condemn Bush?

As will the Islamic extremists if they are met "with force"... but somehow you all don't see the sense of that now that Bush is doing it?

The only way that works is if you make it clear to your enemy that the costs of fighting you are too high. Again, our military has put al Qaeda on the defensive. They are being forced to fight us on their door step... Bush has made their antagonism toward us costly. Why is it you oppose him for doing pretty much what Truman did... but a more decisive job of it?

 

You mean the South Koreans. The North Koreans were a communist state before Truman took office. The Truman doctrine kept South Korea free of them.

Indeed. But the Truman doctrine held. The Communists failed in their war of aggression.

I think millions of South Koreans would laugh at you, and throw overripe fruit.

Major miscalculation. McArthur told Truman he understood "the oriental mind", and the Chinese would not attack. Big mistake.

No kidding. McArthur was completely wrong. Truman should have seen through him, but didn't.

Barbarian on the success of the Truman Doctrine:
And eventually, the Soviet Empire just rusted to pieces, without a major war.

Giving them another nation in which to operate doesn't seem like a good idea somehow.


Barbarian on effective use of threats:
The best way to win is to do so without fighting.

Unfortunately the great majority of insurgents are Baathist loyalists, or Shiite militia, neither of which have any use for Al Qaeda. Bush made it easier for the terrorists, of course, by greatly underestimating the number of troops necessary to control Iraq, and by removing civil and military athorities. Many in the military and Baath party feared and hated Saddam. Instead of taking advantage of that, Bush made enemies of them.

 

Nope. I mean the North Koreans. Our troops had pushed all the way to China and sat helplessly watching as the Chinese massed their counterattack just across the river.... well within range of our artillery and certainly our bombers.

Truman forbade an attack to break up the assault before it started. Thousands of young Americans died as a direct result and the Communists almost pushed us out of the South as well. Truman's failure to take a bold initiative cost 50K+ American soldiers their lives in 3 years. It created the most continuously hostile border in the world for the past 50 years. It allowed the regime that has now come to possess nukes to evolve.... yet you approve. Moreover, the North Korean people have been subjected to cruel oppression and abject poverty for the past 50 years... but could have been part of a unified, modern, and successful Korea.

Bush took out Saddam. To date in over 3 years less than 3,000 Americans have died and total casualties are far less than Korea. A nation has been liberated. Terrorist resources and personnel have been tied up and destroyed. Al Qaeda now has a major blow to its image in the death of Zarqawi. A new democratically elected gov't is beginning to function... and it is significantly less likely that Iraq will someday threaten our children with nukes... yet you disapprove.

We'll see if they can now learn to get along without a major antagonist.

Bush didn't make those estimates. It has been repeatedly confirmed that the WH has supported the field commanders in their requests for troops.

I see. Remove Saddam but leave his sadistic hinchmen in charge of the country, right? Yeah that would have worked.

Actually, that would have insured a bloody civil war as the Shiites wouldn't have allowed it.

So instead he should have alienated the Shiites and Kurds... I think that would have been a formula for immediate and cataclysmic failure. Of course you have the advantage of nitpicking the chosen course since yours will never be tried.

They chose to be enemies when the Shiites and Kurds were given their representative voice in the new nation. Right is right even if you have to fight for it.