|
|
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997
|
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
|||||||||
| View Poll Results: Is Bush Doing a good job on the war on Terror | |||
| Yes, he is doing a very good job |
   
|
6 | 9.68% |
| Yes, he is doing an acceptable job |
  
|
15 | 24.19% |
| Don't know or Don't Care |
  
|
1 | 1.61% |
| No, he is not doing an acceptable job |
  
|
9 | 14.52% |
| No, he is doing a very bad job |
  
|
32 | 51.61% |
| Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
02-21-07, 03:15 PM
|
#1 | ||
|
Navy Seal
 Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Waterloo, Canada
Posts: 8,700
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 2
|
Quote:
Ironically, however, Bush has not only destabilized the situation but also now has to account for keeping it under control. If he wanted "hot raghead on raghead action" - pull the troops out of Iraq and pull the carriers out of the Persian Gulf and THEN watch what happens. 
__________________
There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart) |
||
|
|
|
02-21-07, 03:36 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Cold War Boomer
 Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Walla Walla
Posts: 2,837
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
 By the way Battle Carrier Croup Stennis is now on station waiting for Iran to find out why we call the FA-18 a Hornet ... 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-07, 03:50 PM
|
#3 | |
|
Admiral
 Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,021
Downloads: 9
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
So what, we've got Stennis, Eisenhower, and isn't there another set to arrive there? And then you have whatever is backing up Operation Sea Dragon, or is that still off the Big E? (which the Sea Dragon operation alone is probably enough to take on two times what the Iranian navy is  )
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-07, 04:14 PM
|
#4 |
|
Samurai Navy
 Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: On my Boat
Posts: 594
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Its not just Bush's "War on Terror"...
Its everyone who wishes to live in a world not ruled by fear of another mans religion, "War on Terror". Right now most Muslims in America have no fear of Terrorist cause if for some reason the Terrorist win... then Muslims here have no worries until the rules start to invade their happy go lucky life here in America... Think about it.... whats going to happen if the Muslim Terrorist win? Women will be set back decades in human rights issues. Dress codes will be enforced by execution. The list is end less of the freedoms that will be lost......  Bush's war on terror...Please... What about the free peoples war on terror? Is that going well enough yet? We sit here at our computers keyboards and screens and type out all manner of solutions we wish to see and lay blame where we wish it to be ....:hmm: Its our war ... if you like it or not ...so we need to look in the mirror. 
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-07, 04:27 PM
|
#5 | |
|
Cold War Boomer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Walla Walla
Posts: 2,837
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
the Democrat's approval ...  St Pattrick's Day and SH4 go together ... 
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-21-07, 05:30 PM
|
#6 | ||
|
Torpedoman
 Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 119
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Agreed
Quote:
Right on, great drive... 
__________________
Check out http://subsimulations.informe.com/ Its a great ASWnut101's Great new forum site |
||
|
|
|
|
02-21-07, 04:30 PM
|
#7 |
|
Navy Seal
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Waterloo, Canada
Posts: 8,700
Downloads: 29
Uploads: 2
|
I don't think the terrorists can "win" in the sense that you mean. Terrorism is a limited tactic and is aimed at instilling fear and producing dissent; it can't, by default, 'win' an entire inter-cultural struggle as you suggest. A "win" in this particular scenario would be not by terrorists but by at least a very large Muslim coalition which is yet to form; in fact as the disorder in the ME suggests, such a coalition is far, far from anything. Additionally, any wars fought against US or US-supported states by Muslim countries ended in disasters for them.
I don't think 'war' is the measure to solving them. It's much more a cultural than violent issue, and let's not bring violence into it. Asserting a strong tradition of secular government at home is the best that could be done in the West; Bush has not done a good job of that and, at points, seemed to turn it into a holy war of some sort. I'm personally convinced that no "war against" will ever really succeed. In that case we need to define what Bush's war was for. Was it a war for American security? If so its success is marginal and has not really been tested yet. Was it a war for Iraqi/Afghani freedom/democracy? If so, it's a pretty big failure so far; democracy as a means for itself means nothing - and conditions cannot be argued to have improved (you got rid of Saddam/Taleban, but have you really made their lives better? I would argue that while there's some obvious big improvements, there are also big down-points, so the net result, especially in Iraq, is quite negative).
__________________
There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart) |
|
|
|
|
02-21-07, 04:50 PM
|
#8 |
|
Sea Lord
 Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
I voted not acceptable. I think he did a great job immediately after 9/11 showing a strong response. I think things have gone just a wee bit downhill since then. But what did we expect when we elected an aristocratic, C average dilettante who had to cling to his father's coat tails to get anywhere in life. That being said, I don't think Gore or Kerry would have done much better. Bush is at least reliable when it comes to national defense, and in these times that certainly means something.
PD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
