EiZei 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Now that Clark has decided to run for presidency, do you think he is able to challenge Bush? At least he has bit more military merit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maximilien 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Here in Belgium, for my part, i prefer a democrat like Wessley Clark than the "Monquiesk"Bush Junior. When I was contractor (construction) for the N.A.T.O. everybody was satisfied by this educated person. He managed to speak french and even flemish to congratulate the bests.(well my point of view is superficial but to compare with other U.S. officers he was the most polite). Speaking with other spanish,french,belgian "collègues" they are not very surprised by his decision. By oposite to Bush, Wessley have traveled a lot and he known how to speak with some europeans (La vieille Europe honnorée, vous salue Monsieur ) y (La nueva Europa tambien Senor) Why we can't vote ? (P.S. i will apologise for my poor english ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Quote[/b] ]I wouldn't go so far as to call Afghanistan a disaster. Â We did a lot to hinder the organization and security of Al-Qeida, and the Taliban was removed Small heads up on Afghanistan: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3114566.stm Sounds like failure to me... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoonieRat 0 Posted September 18, 2003 My humble opinion [TM]... A lot of people think America is obliged to turn thirdworld terror states into instant thriving mini stable metropolis's, and accuse them of failure if they don't(when it'll take generations for the fear, hate and division to be forgotton). You can't live the Afghanis lives for them, suddenly make them peacable, unclanish, unwarlike people(I bet there are more AK's than farming implements!). Only they can turn their society around. Throwing money at a country does'nt make a society, and until there is a society (as oppossed to a collection of warring clans) there will never be a nation to build... Kudos to them for at least facing up to the problem at last (it's a shame it takes such a tragedy as a catalyst though) and doing something to curb Islamic terrorism at it's roots. And for at least attemting an impossible job of rebuilding a 'nation' that had divided and ripped itself to peices before the Americans ever set foot in it... You can't just 'rebuild' a nation into something it never was, and probably is'nt even capable of becoming without alot of time passing ... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted September 18, 2003 My humble opinion [TM]...A lot of people think America is obliged to turn thirdworld terror states into instant thriving mini stable metropolis's, and accuse them of failure if they don't(when it'll take generations for the fear, hate and division to be forgotton). You can't live the Afghanis lives for them, suddenly make them peacable, unclanish, unwarlike people(I bet there are more AK's than farming implements!). Only they can turn their society around. Throwing money at a country does'nt make a society, and until there is a society (as oppossed to a collection of warring clans) there will never be a nation to build... Kudos to them for at least facing up to the problem at last (it's a shame it takes such a tragedy as a catalyst though) and doing something to curb Islamic terrorism at it's roots. And for at least attemting an impossible job of rebuilding a 'nation' that had divided and ripped itself to peices before the Americans ever set foot in it... You can't just 'rebuild' a nation into something it never was, and probably is'nt even capable of becoming without alot of time passing ... Your humble opinion is missing one important piece of information though - before the bombing in Afghanistan started, Powell and Rumsfeld publicly declared that they would not repeat America's past mistakes of pulling out after the fight is over and leaving the country to rot. In fact, the UN resolution/the NATO consensus (can't remember what it was) were based on the condition that Afghanistan would be rebuilt after the fight and that the US would not pull out. However, Afghanistan is still rubble, the US have effectively pulled out and the Taliban are on the march again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhoCares 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Well, it is easier to pump a lot of money into Iraq, as you can see a possible payback in the near future, then improving the infrastructure on a rock called Afghanistan... Not to forget that Afghanistan is out. Iraq is the hotter topic. News are made in Iraq, very few do care about Afghanistan anymore, so no PR points to gain there... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
denoir 0 Posted September 18, 2003 Now that Clark has decided to run for presidency, do you think he is able to challenge Bush?At least he has bit more military merit. I don't know about Clark as a politician, but as a military leader he was worthless. Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) was under his command and it was a failure of epic proportion. Very little damage was inflicted on the Yugoslav military while the collateral damage both in Serbia and Kosovo was extensive. As a matter of fact the battle plan was so bad that in the end NATO had to resort to targeting civilian infrastructure in Serbia to get the Yugoslav forces to withdraw from Kosovo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bn880 5 Posted September 18, 2003 I don't know about Clark as a politician, but as a military leader he was worthless. Operation Allied Force (Kosovo) was under his command and it was a failure of epic proportion. Very little damage was inflicted on the Yugoslav military while the collateral damage both in Serbia and Kosovo was extensive.As a matter of fact the battle plan was so bad that in the end NATO had to resort to targeting civilian infrastructure in Serbia to get the Yugoslav forces to withdraw from Kosovo. His predictions on the Iraq war were also toally off. The guy just kept changing his story as different events took place, nothing he said made sense in the end. Â I wonder what kind of president he would make... Â better or worse than Bush, probably better eh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoonieRat 0 Posted September 19, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Powell and Rumsfeld publicly declared that they would not repeat America's past mistakes of pulling out after the fight is over and leaving the country to rot. In fact, the UN resolution/the NATO consensus (can't remember what it was) were based on the condition that Afghanistan would be rebuilt after the fight and that the US would not pull out. Like I said, I don't believe 'you can't live their lives for them', you can pity them, you can wish them well, but until they help themselves, you can't help them. Surely it's up to them to stop the Taliban 'walking in' again? They've got enough guns!. They have to police themselves. USA gets slammed for leaving Afghan, but gets slammed for still being in Iraq!, who can you please? Anyway it's about money, always is. If some of the oil(or hashish) revenue went into the country instead of russia's arms industry maybe?... I think they got their priorities right putting attention into Iraq, and if you don't think they had Iraq 'in the pipes' then, you won't think that they're the catalyst behind Isreals 'bloodless' removal of Arafat now?!... IMO: Cut the heads off of the people who fund and control the networks: The BinLadens, Saddams, Arafats, Ghadafis of the world BEFORE you even think about rebuilding, you usualy rebuild once the wars over no?... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ex-RoNiN 0 Posted September 19, 2003 Quote[/b] ]Powell and Rumsfeld publicly declared that they would not repeat America's past mistakes of pulling out after the fight is over and leaving the  country to rot. In fact, the UN resolution/the NATO consensus (can't remember what it was) were based on the condition that Afghanistan would be rebuilt after the fight and that the US would not pull out. Like I said, I don't believe 'you can't live their lives for them', you can pity them, you can wish them well, but until they help themselves, you can't help them. Surely it's up to them to stop the Taliban 'walking in' again? They've got enough guns!. They have to police themselves. USA gets slammed for leaving Afghan, but gets slammed for still being in Iraq!, who can you please? Anyway it's about money, always is. If some of the oil(or hashish) revenue went into the country instead of russia's arms industry maybe?... I think they got their priorities right putting attention into Iraq, and if you don't think they had Iraq 'in the pipes' then, you won't think that they're the catalyst behind Isreals 'bloodless' removal of Arafat now?!... IMO: Cut the heads off of the people who fund and control the networks: The BinLadens, Saddams, Arafats, Ghadafis of the world BEFORE you even think about rebuilding, you usualy rebuild once the wars over no?... Quote[/b] ]Surely it's up to them to stop the Taliban 'walking in' again? The idea was that western forces were to remain behind to prevent this from happening. The idea of peace-keeping is to keep the peace, not leave the sheep out for the wolves Quote[/b] ]USA gets slammed for leaving Afghan, but gets slammed for still being in Iraq! I don't know what you get told by your local tabloids, but the reality is that the US gets slammed for MESSING UP in Iraq by doing sod all. EVERYONE (apart from a few extreme leftists) agrees that leaving Iraq at the minute is the worst thing that can happen and would result in - another Afghanistan. Instead of going round and bombing people, how about staying at one place and repairing the mess that was caused in the name of democracy and freedom Quote[/b] ]I think they got their priorities right putting attention into Iraq, and if you don't think they had Iraq 'in the pipes' then, you won't think that they're the catalyst behind Isreals 'bloodless' removal of Arafat now? What Quote[/b] ]Cut the heads off of the people who fund and control the networks: The BinLadens, Saddams, Arafats, Ghadafis of the world BEFORE you even think about rebuilding, you usualy rebuild once the wars over no?... How about preventing those people from getting to power in the first place by removing some of their major ammunition Stop bombing foreign ppl, stop poverty, stop meddling, then those people will have no opportunity to get to power in the first place Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
