Americans answered their President - Page 3

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

Now you are speculating. Chaney recieved money from HB because he had shares. He was not on payroll to the best of my kowledge.

Now that the Democrats are back in Congress after 12 years, everything will come under investigation,  the most talked about staged war, Halliburton no-bid contract.

Okay, let me assume that Bush went to war for a noble cause. What kind of stupidity was that to go to war without any plan? The situation is escalating day by day. Terrorists popping up every now and then from every corner. So many lives, money have been lost because of his stupidity. He is answerable to everyone. Why should others pay heavily for his stupid assumption.  He thought he is doing something heroic, that's utter stupity and the whole world is watching his "Tamasha".

Now he has put the gun on Rumsfeld's shoulder. Making him look like a scape-goat(of course Rumsfeld is a devil). Why did not he fire him long back?  If he would have won the election, that devil still would have been holding his post. He thinks eveyone is fool and he is the smartest one. Associates advice a President but the sole authority to take any decision is President's responsibility.

Edited by Pradarshak - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: Pradarshak

Now he has put the gun on Rumsfeld's shoulder. Making him look like a scape-goat(of course Rumsfeld is a devil). Why did not he fire him long back?  If he would have won the election, that devil still would have been holding his post.

 This is how politics are played out . Bush had to give democrats something (read Rumsfield) as he still has 2 years left in the office. Now had he fired Rumsfield before and not after the election , the outcome would have been different maybe.

[quote=sowmyaa]I truly hope now that the we have answered our president, he will change his failed "stay the course" strategy in Iraq.[/quote]
I think the worst is yet to come. Post invasion outcome in Iraq has definitely proved one thing: That democracy is extremely difficult to implement in that country. The ethnic conflicts and killings among Iraqis have been on surge and a CIA Report suggests that US invasion and its aftermath has provided a recruitment ground and the opportunity for enhancing technical skills to the new terrorists. Amid all this chaos, US has helped Iraq to draft their first constitution, "Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws" is one of the basic principles of constitution!!!
SO essentially, in making of this grand enchillada, which started out on a "noble" thought of liberating people of Iraq from a dictator and to make world safer from WMD, we have just added one more to the list of unstable countries from that region. It is going to haunt us for decades to come at cost of our prosperity, safety and credibility.

Originally posted by: bhilwara

[quote=sowmyaa]I truly hope now that the we have answered our president, he will change his failed "stay the course" strategy in Iraq.[/quote]
I think the worst is yet to come. Post invasion outcome in Iraq has definitely proved one thing: That democracy is extremely difficult to implement in that country. The ethnic conflicts and killings among Iraqis have been on surge and a CIA Report suggests that US invasion and its aftermath has provided a recruitment ground and the opportunity for enhancing technical skills to the new terrorists. Amid all this chaos, US has helped Iraq to draft their first constitution, "Islam is the national religion and a basic foundation for the country's laws" is one of the basic principles of constitution!!!
SO essentially, in making of this grand enchillada, which started out on a "noble" thought of liberating people of Iraq from a dictator and to make world safer from WMD, we have just added one more to the list of unstable countries from that region. It is going to haunt us for decades to come at cost of our prosperity, safety and credibility.

i thought the express intention of going to war was to get rid of saddam's WMDs. the "noble thought of liberating people of iraq" came only afterwards when no WMDs were to be found. after all, public couldn't be left feeling they didnt get anything to show for the war😆

Originally posted by: Pradarshak

there are alot of expectations from the Democrats now since everyone was criticizing the republicans and how dem.'s claim they could've done a btter job. they ahve to prove themselves. if they act like the republicans they will lose their power.
"The Democrats did not win it is just that the republicans defeated" by my gov't professor.

i thought that was interesting b/c it is very true that voters did not necessarily vote for democrats (most of them) but voted against the republicans out of anger. they opted for an alternative to republicans which was democrats ...like a slap in face for republlicans like u did bad in economy, etc....so we'll go for ur enemy (kinda like that).

Originally posted by: abhijit shukla

In peace, we lose as many as US in Iraq
Rajat Pandit
[ 10 Nov, 2006 0012hrs ISTTIMES NEWS NETWORK ]

NEW DELHI: The wars in 1962, 1965 and 1971 killed around 3,500 Indian soldiers each. The 1999 Kargil conflict killed 527. Guess how many soldiers are killed when the country is not at war? Around 1,000 each year, which is the same average number of soldiers the US has lost in the Iraq war in the last three years — a number high enough to make President Bush lose the political war at home.

Obviously, life is cheaper in India. But guess what kills Indian soldiers the most? The answer is a revelation — road accidents. Around 300 soldiers die in road accidents every year — 313 in 2003, 315 in 2004 and 295 in 2005. In the first 10 months of 2006, road accidents have taken a toll of 250 soldiers. The treacherous terrain that Army needs to traverse as well as the sheer volume of traffic are the main reasons for the high casualty figures.

The next big peace-time killer is counter-insurgency operations. Around 200 soldiers die each year fighting insurgents and terrorists in Kashmir, the north-east and elsewhere. The figure, just a few years ago, was anywhere in the region of 400-500. But better intelligence and tactics have led to a steady decline in the figure.

Stress, which includes suicides and fragging (a term coined during the Vietnam War to categorise deaths caused by stressed-out soldiers killing unpopular members of their unit), accounts for the lives of around 100 soldiers each year. It's not a small number, but it's not as large as it is imagined (some have even reported that stress is the biggest peace-time killer).

Until October this year, during which 250 soldiers died in road accidents, around 80 died in counter-insurgency operations, while stress killed another 100. Said a senior officer: "Actually, the number of soldiers killed in operations is quite less compared to the number of non-operational deaths, which includes, suicides, murders, snake-bites and, of course, road accidents."

http://www.samachar.com/showurl.htm?rurl=http://timesofindia .indiatimes.com/articleshow/386815.cms?headline=In~peace,~we ~lose~as~many~as~US~in~Iraq

Yeah I've read similar article  earlier.Its really sad that  somany soldiers die not in war but in maintanence of the troops and the subsequent process also.

In some fields people don't worry about death but they pray for great death and Milatary is one of those fields.Every Soldier wishes to have great death but unfortunately some soldiers die like this,I don't mean every Soldier wishes to die but it may be  their thought about death.Whether its Indian or Paksitani or American or British Soldier ,Soldier is a Soldier ,he/she needs to be respected.

Regards,

Mythili

sorry was a bit disrepectful

Edited by sareg - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: sareg

😆😆😆

Let me see you are advocating a Iraq equivalent for India, cirrect?

I don't think so😛!!!! India can never be Iraq and India is little bit more powerful than Iraq.

Edited by mythili_Kiran - 17 years ago

Originally posted by: mythili_Kiran

I don't think so😛!!!! India can never be Iraq and India is little bit more powerful than Iraq.

You got it the otherway round

If you consider it from the POV of those perished soldiers, they would like to die in a noble cause for the country, like if India were to invade a country in the pretext of WMD or freeing the oppressed

Edited by sareg - 17 years ago