Well, yes, but I was painting in broad strokes. I meant that Bush is the sort of man who jumps from "this is a bad man" to "crush, kill, destroy" without going through the usual steps of risk assessment, logistics, long-term policy considerations, etc.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Oh fer Chrissakes! Can we get any more amateurish?
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by Elok
Well, yes, but I was painting in broad strokes. I meant that Bush is the sort of man who jumps from "this is a bad man" to "crush, kill, destroy" without going through the usual steps of risk assessment, logistics, long-term policy considerations, etc."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan Robinson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elok
Well, yes, but I was painting in broad strokes. I meant that Bush is the sort of man who jumps from "this is a bad man" to "crush, kill, destroy" without going through the usual steps of risk assessment, logistics, long-term policy considerations, etc.
The war was planned out of the DOD and Cheney's cabal. They decided to finally carry out their dream, to show that American military power could be used to crush the "bad guys" and spread their version of American values. They wanted to show that the US could make use of its position as the sole superpower to spread its influence using old fashioned hard power and not this soft power crap, and thus have more control, and do it faster and better.
It was also this group that thought, perhaps most disasterously of all, that somthing so ridiculously ambitious (and just plain ridiculous) could also be done for cheap.
A combination of oversized ambitions and penny pinching have given us the failure we have today.If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by East Street Trader
It looks to me as though there might be broad consensus in the US over these statements:
1. It is OK to invade other countries;
2. There is a right way to do it which will keep disruption to a tolerable minimum;
3. It wasn't done right in the case of Iraq.
1) It is OK to invade other countries when they pose a clear and present danger to U.S. national interests.
2) There is a right way to do it -- called the Powell Doctrine -- which involves going in with overwhelming force as a way of assuring a quick, decisive victory.
3) We were lied to about #1, and failed to implement #2.
4) If #1 were actually true, we would be more forgiving of the failure to follow #2; if #2 had worked, we wouldn't have cared so much about being lied to regarding #1. It's the combo that's a real killer."I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Comment
-
called the Powell Doctrine
The rest of that post, spot on
Though I would note the minimalist approach to military action in recent US military strategy is not a product of Cheney/Rumsfeld."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Comment
-
if #2 had worked, we wouldn't have cared so much about being lied to regarding #1.
Government: We just invaded a country in your name, but don't worry, we got 'em good, so you don't need to worry about them bothering us again with those deadly nuclear, chemical and biolo....oh, turns out that just had a few sharp pointy sticks. Oh well. They won't bother us with those either.
Us: GREAT!
One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Patroklos
That is not called the Powell Doctrine. Did you just make that up?“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.â€
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Comment
-
Well, its a central piece of the Weinberger Doctrine, which the Powell Doctrine is based off of.
Gore invented the internet"The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Comment
-
Look, I'm no expert on military history, but I am an avid reader of all kinds of journalism -- and journalistically, I've read this referred to as the "Powell Doctrine" over and over. Perhaps it's a misnomer, but it's not my misnomer. As the substance of what I've said hasn't been questioned, perhaps we can all go find some other nits to pick."I have as much authority as the pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." — George Carlin
Comment
-
Hey, I said I agreed with you.
And your use of the term is a symptom, not source, of this retarded labeling."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Comment
-
Originally posted by East Street Trader
It looks to me as though there might be broad consensus in the US over these statements:
1. It is OK to invade other countries;
2. There is a right way to do it which will keep disruption to a tolerable minimum;
3. It wasn't done right in the case of Iraq.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
Comment
Comment