<p>We continue to think of people with darker skin than us as stupid which is a big mistake. </p>
<p>And GW is using baseball averages to his term. He figures if he can hit one homer in his abats, people will forget about all his strikeouts before.</p>
<p>"We continue to think of people with darker skin than us as stupid which is a big mistake. "
I certainly don’t make that mistake. I work in technology along with many, many “dark skinned” people - all of whom are extremely capable.</p>
<p>“I certainly don’t make that mistake. I work in technology along with many, many “dark skinned” people - all of whom are extremely capable.”</p>
<p>Yea, but you aren’t in the White house or pentagon.</p>
<p>That was totally uncalled for Opie.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The info provided to the Republican Senate Intelligence Committee was a white-wash. The same CIA guy had travelled to the IAEA in Europe and made the same presentation. The IAEA experts knew that it was a white wash when they saw that he had omitted the rocket launcher specfications from his comparison chart.</p>
<p>The UN inspectors knew exactly what the tubes were for. They had inventoried 100,000 identical tubes purchased ten year earlier and had the engineering drawings for the reverse-engineered Italian rocket launchers. Identical specifications to the rocket launchers.</p>
<p>They knew exactly how many of the existing tubes had been spoiled by 10 years of storage. They had the purchase orders for the new tubes. They knew that the dimensions, materials, and coatings applied to the new tubes were unsuitable for any known centrifuge design, but a perfect match for rocket launcher tubes.</p>
<p>It wasn’t just the IAEA. The State Department intelligence office had sent samples of the tubes to our own centrifuge experts at Oak Ridge, who concurred that the tubes were not suitable for centrifuge use. They wall thickness and diaameter were all wrong. They wouldn’t work in a centrifuge.</p>
<p>On top of all that, the Iraqis had never ordered or acquired any of the OTHER parts for a centrifuge program. Why? Because they didn’t have a centrifuge program.</p>
<p>Aside from all that, the tubes were never delivered to Iraq. The US intercepted the first shipment and got the Chinese government to cancel the remainder of the order.</p>
<p>“That was totally uncalled for Opie.”</p>
<p>You are in the white house? Oh man, sorry.</p>
<p>You honestly don’t feel that Gw and pals have got any of this Iraq stuff right so far do you? </p>
<p>Greeted as liberators? </p>
<p>I’m sorry this group has underestimated in the same way Johnson’s group did. </p>
<p>Charlie earned his respect. </p>
<p>These guys will as well. </p>
<p>We haven’t learned that when a man has nothing, there is little we can take away to reduce his will to fight.</p>
<p>Remeber I’m the dove who wants alot more troops over there if we’re going to be there. IT is plain STUPID to fight an undermaned war. </p>
<p>Did we win WW2 because we put fewer troops on the field? honestly. We outproduced, outgunned, outtanked, outplaned, outrooped the other guy. We won with more, not less. Prove me wrong. </p>
<p>Now we have an administration that played “I can win with less” for five years and you don’t think that’s dumb? </p>
<p>It’s one thing to play name that tune with a few notes. It’s another to fight a war. </p>
<p>I know you’re the historical history buff, check inventory, production counts, troop levels and let me know if we fought ww2 with less.</p>
<p>Keeping Iran from having nukes is supposed to be a priority of this administration? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700727_pf.html</a></p>
<p>Interesting… I underestamated the power of White House’s propaganda, since I am hearing of this for the first time. So I guess if that source is correct, than the entire conflict is “manufactured” by the White House?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the ETO, Allied troop strength never exceed Germany’s. In fact, American reluctance to draft more soldiers is (was) a source of bitterness among some WWII vets who were put into the line on D-Day and not taken out again until VE Day. Some of those men were in units that suffered over 200% casualties during the battle for Europe. So, no, we did not “overtroop” our adversaries.</p>
<p>ktoto:</p>
<p>You have to understand that the neocon philosophy is a total rejection of the “realist” foreign policy espoused by the likes of Henry Kissinger, James Baker, etc. The “realists” believe in accepting the world the way it is and dealing with countries to whatever extent is beneficial to United States interests. For example, even though there was much to dislike, Kissinger saw a long-term US interest in a dialog with China. Not surprisingly, Kissinger has condemned the Bush administration for not pursuing diplomacy with Iran…even if it initially proves unrewarding.</p>
<p>The neocons brought a completely different mindset to foreign policy: that the United States not only could, but should, project its power to shape the world in a US mold – democracy, free markets, etc. – by force, if necessary.</p>
<p>The diplomatic side of the equation, namely the State Department, has been completely neutered under the Bush Administration. US foreign policy was controlled by two old allies: Rumsfeld and Cheney. You saw what happened to Colin Powell and anyone else advocating diplomacy.</p>
<p>The system won’t let me edit my previous post, so I’ll just do it again:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the ETO, Allied troop strength never exceed Germany’s. In fact, American reluctance to draft more soldiers is (was) a source of bitterness among some WWII vets who were put into the line on D-Day and not taken out again until VE Day. Some of those men were in units that suffered over 200% casualties during the battle for Europe. So, no, we did not “overtroop” our adversaries.</p>
<p>EDITED: We did come to the war with a lot more materiel than any other combatant. The unofficial slogan of the US military is “amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.” The Germans were amazed at the amount of stuff the Americans brought to war, and even scorned the US reliance on fire power instead of individual skills. The Germans were wrong…</p>
<p>EDITED AGAIN: And, as rarely happens, I agree with you on this. This outcome was so predictable in 2003 that it continues to make me sick just to think about it. I was always opposed to the war, but I lack whatever it takes to derive glee from the mistakes of the Bush administration. I don’t understand how so many people can take joy at these blunders that are causing such harm in the US and the world.</p>
<p>I think you’re mistaking joy for outright amazement that the same people are still in charge of planning.</p>
<p>The only people who seem to be taking joy in this war are the ones who insist it’s going well and there was nothing wrong with the planning. Makes you wonder what their real intent was, that they think they’re getting it.</p>
<p>“And, as rarely happens, I agree with you on this”</p>
<p>I don’t know how long you’ve been in WA, but think of me as a “scoop” jackson demo. Progressive social and work issues, strong defense. It just screws some folks up here who can’t imagine a stong military and social services supported by the same person. (Build the best planes AND Bombers the world has ever seen. ) That’s guns and butter baby. </p>
<p>America’s strength is it’s ability to do MORE. You name it, America can make More…quickly. I agreed with Bush Sr on Iraq and the vacum and civil war came true. </p>
<p>Senior’s problem was he conducted the war too well. It’s a big reason he lost re-election. People were’nt affraid, so they focused on other issues which he was less strong at. If Iraq 1 would have lasted a year or more, he would have been a two termer. </p>
<p>Jr. has either purposely or ignorantly stretched this puppy out. Personally I can’t help but think he looked at dad and went, this ain’t happening to me and thus color fear charts and talks of constant outside threats gave him an edge. </p>
<p>There’s a level of me that finds this totally despicable that in order to stay in power lives are lost that didn’t need to be. It reminds me of Johnson, we aren’t fighting to win, were fighting to maintain chaos. Maybe it’s a Texas thing. I’m hoping our future leadership comes from another state.</p>