Bush Wars: Who was right?

[bishop]

it actually doesn't matter if it's being pumped.. all that matters is that the little bit being pumped, and whatever's pumped in the future, will be priced in dollars.

[7 Swildo 7]

well it is no doubt that saddam is a tyrantand a terrorist. Even if we had not gone into the war that would not have stopped the terrorist attacks. The best defense is a good offense.

He who stays on the defensive does not make war, he endures it

-- Field Marshal Colmar Baron von der Goltz, 1883

And i wish we would do something about those other countries with the "stan" and those countries in Africa. America as a nation must stand up for the weak. That is why i am glad we have gone to war and that is why i support the war wmd or not. I cant stand people who stand around and watch while others suffer. The strong must protect the weak.

All that is essential for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

-- Edmund Burke

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: 7 Swildo 7 The strong must protect the weak.

America's paradigm is subltely different. Here, the strong prey upon the weak. Oh, well. You could call it international Darwinism...

[Matt W]

And i wish we would do something about those other countries with the "stan" and those countries in Africa.

So you want an American Empire? Try asking some older countries about the consequences of Empire - it bites back. Plus, at least one of those 'other countries with the "stan"' has nuclear weapons and is your ally, remember?

[7 Swildo 7]

im not talking about thaking them over im talking about helping them. bring them to a state where they can easily control things themselves and livce better lives. Kinda like what Bush is trying to do in Iraq....we r not taking it we r just helping the people

[Sonart]

Quote by: Swildo im not talking about thaking them over im talking about helping them. bring them to a state where they can easily control things themselves and livce better lives. Kinda like what Bush is trying to do in Iraq....we r not taking it we r just helping the people

Yeah, it worked so well in Somalia, and now in Iraq. :rolleyes:

.

[7 Swildo 7]

Put yourself in their shoes for a sec. wouldnt u want help? Your family is being tortured and slaughtered and there is nothing u can do. You have VERY little freedom...if any. Wouldnt you want someone to come save you. All of you are so misguided by the news. Either that or you are too selfish with your lives or your just too pussy to stand up to the bully and do some good in the world.

[lily]

When you put it that way 7............I think someo fright here in the good old USof A could do with some saving. Not all tyrany is done by killing.

If one so much as breaths a word against Bush, you're labeled a traitor. If you talk against this war, you're labeled as a terrorist sympathizer.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: 7 Swildo 7 Put yourself in their shoes for a sec. wouldnt u want help? Your family is being tortured and slaughtered and there is nothing u can do. You have VERY little freedom...if any. Wouldnt you want someone to come save you. All of you are so misguided by the news. Either that or you are too selfish with your lives or your just too pussy to stand up to the bully and do some good in the world.

Sorry, but that's an asinine statement considering the fact that not a single IED was ever directed at saddam by any of those so miserably oppressed by his regime. Why didn't any of his victim's families ever target saddam the way they do our troops? Is it too much to ask those who "want someone to come save" them to take the first step?

And, since I'm sure you don't want to appear "too pussy to stand up to the bully", I'd like to know when you are leaving for Iraq. Talk is cheap.

[righthand]

And i wish we would do something about those other countries with the "stan" and those countries in Africa.

Quote by: Matt W So you want an American Empire? Try asking some older countries about the consequences of Empire - it bites back. Plus, at least one of those 'other countries with the "stan"' has nuclear weapons and is your ally, remember?

I'm not at all sure that we are on thread at all, but the words of a former empire citizen are very true. GB ruled an empire totally disportionate to its size. Yes, 'gun boat diplomacy' helped, but account for little really in the overall. The most important was just DIPLOMACY. Diplomats got and kept more empire than army. The backup of an army that could win the last battle was important, but not critical. Top quality diplomates were.

The US does not do diplomacy! Even if it never appointed bully bolton to the UN, the rest knew that. Your best diplomates are third rate by European standards.

The US does not do peace. Before you ever invaded Iraq, it was clear from your record that you do not do peace. Where has your army pacified in a decade or two. "Hearts & Mind" is a great expression, but not the tiniest bit understood by the US. You still get FOOLS posting here about never having lost a battle in Vietnam. So bloody well what. You LOST THE WAR!!! Learn!!!

I would not give a blue-cap to an American soldier is he was the last available. By training and attitude, there's a good chance he would start a war not prevent one. The US does not do peacekeepers. Their training is all wrong. Blood & Thunder, Shock & Awe may win buildings, but that's it. The answer, read my postings. The UK learnt all the lessons FROM the IRA. They learnt. You can, too. Hearts & Minds. Simple. Retrain half your army for peace. All too late for Iraq. For the next time, maybe. For now the answer is with the armies of whatever muslin friends you have left. The sooner the better, but not from bush.

{Sometimes a posting starts in the wrong place and ends up in the right place. And sometimes, like a China posting it starts in the....}

In this posting I must also say that your biggest problem is an other Middle East country. Probably this wont change either.

Last thought. The problem with being the police man of the world or whatever cap you want to wear is this: Like a policeman, you need to be right most of the time to have any credibility. In the last years your record is touching zero. Nobody fears you. The world is very much less safe for all of us. Remember the sequel of losing in Vietnam. Is there a connection between Nixon losing the public trust and his withdrawing from Vietnam? Slight digression from "Bush Wars". Where's Matt!

[Gilligan]

If the first Iraq war was just, than why was G.H.W. Bush and his comrades charged with war crimes?

[Gilligan]

Quote by: dotcoma How can you be so cynical and decided on every damn topic that has to do with Bush lol. Yes Pat, they have no concern for the population that they are losing soldiers trying to stabilize each day. The most important objective should be to create a huge ally like Iraq in the Middle East. If this is the goal then the well-being of the general public via construction would be the goal. I am not saying that we will stick to our guns and finish what we started but I hope we do.

Obviously, you must know what we started, what is it? TELL Americans why we are bankrupting our own country to be in Iraq, why we are losing troops either to death or they go awol, or they become disabled? Tell me why I should be support a war that could be going on in 8 years when my only son turns 18. Tell me please. Maybe I'm an idiot, because every reason that we have been given for being in Iraq has turned out to be bogus, or resolved (Saddam's capture).

[Gilligan]

Quote by: dotcoma umm... Pope says unjust..so there is no moral justification? :rolleyes: Since when does the catholic church define morals? Also, our "reluctant allies" are being investigated for their involvement in oil for food agendas that would have surely encouraged them to try to maintain a Saddam-ruled Iraq. Well I can tell you have no idea how dark the situation is. Thank god you have no authority to make any decisions. You exit and what you get is a victory for these anti-western terrorists. What will happen to the Iraqi people? Who will they blame? What will be the result? The result could be a new terrorist state with a new hotbed of recruits (Iraq). Leave before reconstruction and stabilization and you'd be a fool. Since when do you define what justifies war? Realists may see the region as in need of a transformation to help prevent terror at home (by going to the source region).

Bush can't even justify this war and he started it. He gets on t.v. and that's the same drone. Even his ex-speech writer says that it is his fault that no one is taking him seriously when the word Iraq comes out of his mouth:

August 25, 2005
Bush Losing His Bully Pulpit
Former Bush speechwriter David Frum says that by now "it should be clear that President Bush's words on the subject of Iraq have ceased connecting with the American public."

The main problem: "Again and again during the Bush presidency... the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chosen. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. The networks will all be invited. And after these elaborate preparations, the president says... nothing that he has not said a hundred times before."

"If a president continues to do that, he is himself teaching the public and the media to ignore him - especially when the words seem utterly to ignore the past three months of real-world events."

[righthand]

If the first Iraq war was just, than why was G.H.W. Bush and his comrades charged with war crimes?

Is this true?

My first post on this thread said ...

Well no parent could have been more chuffed than senior to see his son 'elected' president of the USA. Having been there and knowing his son, he was probably more concern than most as whether junior was up to it. And boy would he have been right to be concerned. Excepting genocide in Sudan - maybe -, his son may turn out to be THE BIGGEST MASS MURDERER OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY and he has three years to go. So the evidence.

Nobody questioned this. The most important thing That I said was ...

Now one more big thing for the neo-cons to take on board. Once senior did not go for Baghdad then, all of Saddam's prior sins CANNOT and SHOULD be used as justification for Gulf Two. This is a deliberate confusion and woolly thinking.

yet god keeps referring to 'desert graves' that I think are pre-Gulf1. If senior didn't go after Saddam when if was beaten for these 'sins' they cannot now be used as excuses for Gulf2.

In the absence of WMD etcetera, they fall back on pre-Gulf1 'sins' to show Saddam was A BAD MAN as the ONLY justification left for the invasion. Accept my point and the is NO justification. No justification = War Criminal.

righthand 08-13-05, 06:36 pm # 43 ...A major justification of the war Saddam's connection with 9/11. He MIGHT have genuinely have believed there was a connection at one time. Early evidence was that he was WRONG. He set up Commissions to delay the issue. All eventually stated there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. For their future promotions ambassadorships etc it was in their interest to find the evidence if there was ANY. NONE. ZERO. I believe that he always knew it was a LIE. He's LYING now and he'll LIE tomorrow. The only alternative is that on TWO occasions you have 'elected' the BIGGEST GOBSHITE in History. Yes there have been Big Gobshites before in history, but not elect by 'all' the people. If he does not know that he's lying then he's brain dead. His handlers must tell him before every briefing "Please, please please don't mention Saddam and 9/11 in the same sentence." Maybe they should try some reverse psychology, but that needs a functioning brain to work. Regan had at least the excuse of old age. Is Bush just dumb?

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: righthand Is this true? "bent" as in "To misrepresent; distort: bend the truth." DOES IT COMPARE TO BEING CALLED A LIAR??? .

The link you posted on another thread where you don't like the word bent was only of Armstrong lobbying for some more money for cancer research from our wonderful President George Bush. (A rather noble endeavor for both parties to get into IMO)
Nearly 1.5 million in our country each year become afflicted with the disease and nearly a half million die a year (including my own beloved mother).
What you wrote around the link you started the thread with IMO had almost nothing to do with the article's substance.

I'm sorry, did the article call Bush evil, RANT RANT RANT and so on?

Why not just start a proper slander thread about the President without the inclusion a real article about another topic?

I believe "YOU BELIEVE" what you say, I don't believe you are a liar at all.

To me, IMO your situation mirrors what happened exactly in the world regarding WMD. The world, UN, Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Bush all believed based on what was before them that Saddam had WMD. Saddam even kept saying he had them. They all believed it and were not lying when they included that on reasons to go into Iraq. So, it can happen.

[righthand]

Quote by: Gilligan Bush can't even justify this war and he started it. He gets on t.v. and that's the same drone. Even his ex-speech writer says that it is his fault that no one is taking him seriously when the word Iraq comes out of his mouth: August 25, 2005 Bush Losing His Bully Pulpit Former Bush speechwriter David Frum says that by now "it should be clear that President Bush's words on the subject of Iraq have ceased connecting with the American public." The main problem: "Again and again during the Bush presidency... the president will agree to give what is advertised in advance as a major speech. An important venue will be chosen. A crowd of thousands will be gathered. The networks will all be invited. And after these elaborate preparations, the president says... nothing that he has not said a hundred times before." "If a president continues to do that, he is himself teaching the public and the media to ignore him - especially when the words seem utterly to ignore the past three months of real-world events."

I really hope this is true. I've searched quite a bit and cannot find it. Could you give the URL.. I found...

David Frum, former Bush speechwriter and clown prince of neoconservatism, attacked those on the anti-war right in a hit piece entitled Unpatriotic Conservatives: "They began by hating the neoconservatives. They came to hate their party and this president. They have finished by hating their country." In other words, speaking out against a Republican war waged by a Republican president makes you a traitor. And that continues to be the neocon modus operandi. In an effort to silence any and all opposition to the so-called "war on terror" (or, if you prefer the updated nomenclature, the "global struggle against violent extremism"), they have resorted to name-calling, ad hominem attacks and all-out smear campaigns. But what else would we expect? The neocons are desperate because their cakewalk of a war has turned into the proverbial quagmire. It has been two-and-a-half years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, and what do we have to show for it? Nearly 2,000 American soldiers are dead. Almost 14,000 have been wounded. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed (and that's about as close to a real estimate as we'll get since the U.S. government isn't concerned with determining the extent of "collateral damage"). Thousands more Iraqis, including a sizeable chunk of Iraq's Christian population, have been displaced. Terrorist bombings are a daily occurrence, and the proposed Iraqi constitution promises a system of government based on Islamic law. What Are We Fighting For? http://www.antiwar.com/orig/shelton.php?articleid=7111 by Lee Shelton

and a few similar but not the same. I would appreciate it, thank you.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: righthand I really hope this is true. I've searched quite a bit and cannot find it. Could you give the URL.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...ly_pulpit.html
Hint: Google the entire headline.

[ise]

Bush Wars: Who was right?

With Karl Rove's help, Junior designed his presidency as a reverse of his father's. W. would succeed by studying Dad's failures and doing the opposite. But in a bizarre twist of filial fate, the son has stumbled so badly in areas where he tried to one-up Dad that he has ended up giving Dad a leg up in the history books. As Mark Twain said: "When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." Of course, it's taken Junior only five years to learn how smart his old man was.

Disney on Parade September 17, 2005 MAUREEN DOWD

His father made the "mistake" of not conquering and occupying Iraq because he had the silly idea that Iraqis would resent it. His father made the "mistake" of raising taxes, not cutting them, and overly obsessing about the federal deficit. And his father made the "mistake" of hewing to the center, making his base mad and losing his bid for re-election. Bush père did make a real mistake in responding slowly to Hurricane Andrew in 1992, but that blunder has been dwarfed by what the slothful son hath wrought. Because of his fatal tardiness, W. now has to literally promise the moon to fix New Orleans and the rest of the Gulf Coast, driving up the federal deficit and embarking on the biggest spending bonanza and government public works program since F.D.R. In his address from the French Quarter, the president sounded like such a spendthrift bleeding heart that he is terrifying the right more than his father ever did. Read my lips: By the time all this is over, people will be saying that Poppy was the true conservative in the family.

sister maureen says it so well. yes you would know she has real irish blood and not some phony ny wantabe irish. for the real thing look for truth and intergity. you tell 'em, maureen.

[GodBlessAmerica]

Quote by: ise Bush Wars: Who was right? Disney on Parade September 17, 2005 MAUREEN DOWD sister maureen says it so well. yes you would know she has real irish blood and not some phony ny wantabe irish. for the real thing look for truth and intergity. you tell 'em, maureen.

Another benefit of the War in the Middle East IMO, first Lybia gave up its WMD and now North Korea agreed to give up nukes.
Bush is brilliant, he insisted on six party talks and this is working out.

Korea, who most Democrats wanted us at war with is being handled with diplomacy.

Way to go Bush Administration.

[Compugasm]

How would I stop the war? The obvious answer is to up the ante of military power. This involves the creation of a new tactical branch of the military, called "Lingerie Battallion". Shooting hot chicks in bikinis only happens in Russ Meyer movies. This Battallion could be run by Hugh Hefner, or Gina Gerson. But the basic premise should be fairly obvious. The war is obviously a blunder because we have the government running it. A partnership between AOL/TimeWarner, and Mary-Kate and Ashley would certainly force an unconditional surrender within a few years.

NOTE: i was replying to something many pages ago, and didn't realize this had advanced to page 4 now. So it's a bit out of context.