President Bush

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: President Bush

I just wanted to reply to what tsugomaru said "...we were getting rid of a ruler that abused his people." How in the world does a bad ruler (which might I say wasn't even threatening America directly) need an entire war fought on its behalf? I mean honestly Suddam Hussein was different from Hitler (aside from the fact that Suddam learned a bit from Hitler about torcher). We could have most definatly approached this better, but it didn't happen because we were so consumed with fear in 9/11 that we would do just about anything to stop terrorists. Now its up to a solution that will come out of this mess hopefully.

[tsugomaru]

Re: President Bush

Nono, Devonin is quite right, he's put things in new light for me. =\

Master_of_the_faster, I still haven't quite figured out why we are in Iraq in the first place. However, I think we can all agree that we screwed things up in Iraq to the point where a ruling Suddam would've been better.

~Tsugomaru

[devonin]

Re: President Bush

I'll also point out, just to put another nail in the "It's for the oil" coffin, that the US actually gets most of its oil from Canada, followed by Mexico, followed by Nigeria.

Iraq is down in 7th, after Angola and before Algeria.


And now, on the more socio-political front: The whole "Well Saddam is a bad guy" argument.

1/ Unlike the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam was elected. Even if the election was potentially fraudulent, the Taliban as an organisation was based outside Afghanistan and took over. They were foreigners who took control. Saddam was not a foreigner, and so even if he -was- elected through shady means, the Americans can't cry "Freeing the victims" in the same way they did for Afghanistan.

2/ What rule where obliges all world leaders to be kind, benevolent friendly people, such that anyone who isn't should somehow be -forcibly- removed from office? I don't remember the UN saying "Oh...and you can't be a jackass"

3/ What right does a country have to say to another one "OH...we think your leader is a bad guy, we'll just invade, kill him, replace him with someone we think is a good guy, and you can thank us later"? Even -if- a majority of people in the country are happy for the service, you set a -very- dangerous precedent of "It's okay to depose you because we don't like your style"

I grant you, he was not a good person, he did many very objectionable things, but I know -I- wasn't party to electing Team America, World Police.

I guess that is my main problem with President Bush. For god sakes man, you invaded because the leader was unfriendly to America, and you wanted to replace him with someone who would give the Great Satan a more square deal, and you were pissed off that he repayed your arming and training his country by using those resources against you.

Fair enough...just -say so-

I'm going to disagree with the military action in Iraq regardless, but at least if you stop trying to pretend there is some genuine humane peace-loving reason guiding you, and just admit what you're doing, I can at least respect you while I protest.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: President Bush

What about Fidel Castro?

He was elected in Cuba and America has had many conflicts over there but I don't see people crying about that.

Or North Korea's Kim Jong-il that showed off nuclear weapons to the world but later gave an apology to America.

The point of going into the Middle East was the threat from an uncontrollable area. Unlike Cuba or North Korea with one leader and a huge army, the Terroist groups in the middle east are scattered and hidden in cities. It was known that Saddam had a link with the al-Qaeda and President Bush felt that he wanted to act from that knowledge instead of it coming into America. It was a huge risk that he took and the results from both sides were not what I like to call positive but in my opinion having us (American Military) set up a government and help a democracy build in Iraq instead of having a terroist group invade America or any other country was a damn good decision. I can say now that if a terroist group attacked another country that same country would be joining arms next to the American Troops.

[devonin]

Re: President Bush

What about Fidel Castro?

He was elected in Cuba and America has had many conflicts over there but I don't see people crying about that.

That would be because Fidel Castro never came up in the discussion. Bay of Pigs was a total fiasco, and the US had no business having anything to do with it. It was just one more proxy battle between the US and the USSR during the cold war.

It was known that Saddam had a link with the al-Qaeda and President Bush felt that he wanted to act from that knowledge instead of it coming into America.

Considering that the american government never successfully proved this link to the satisfaction of the UN, I'd appreciate some evidence of said link please?

having us (American Military) set up a government and help a democracy build in Iraq instead of having a terroist group invade America

You know, somehow I think there are more options than just those two. Further, I don't think that overthrowing the Iraqi government is in any way shape or form going to -stop- terrorists from attacking America, unless by 'stop' you mean 'encourage'

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: President Bush

That would be because Fidel Castro never came up in the discussion. Bay of Pigs was a total fiasco, and the US had no business having anything to do with it. It was just one more proxy battle between the US and the USSR during the cold war.

Its still an issue to this day just like the Middle East has been. Haven't you ever heard of the 1000 year war? I am sure you have so it should be no surprise to you that a country is trying to help stop the madness.

Considering that the american government never successfully proved this link to the satisfaction of the UN, I'd appreciate some evidence of said link please?

Kind of how there was no proof of WMDs when they "searched" for them but back in the late 90s there was proof of them? Iraq was told to get rid of the WMDs in early 2001 a second and final warning and late 2002 guess what happened, they let the UN inspectors to go there and found nothing. Oh wow thats shocking, if you can tell me now that there is no way you could hide a WMD in 2 years than you are not intelligent. For proof of the connection between the too it is between Iraqi and Iran governments. It has never been proved to be official evidence but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been or still be true. I know it must sound like a weak arguement but the possibility at this point is enough to be looked under.

You know, somehow I think there are more options than just those two. Further, I don't think that overthrowing the Iraqi government is in any way shape or form going to -stop- terrorists from attacking America, unless by 'stop' you mean 'encourage'

Options? What options, that was the plan from the get go when invaded iraq. The riddance of the WMDs and with Iraq and its politically correct government would help keep it that way. There was never a "true" government there to over throw, we went in there to establish one but as you can see its not as easy as it was said on national tv. Heres were being a country that has no threat on a daily basis vs a country that is filled with crime, mass murdering, threats from nuclear weapons get you, we will always have a group that hates america. Always and theres nothing I can do about it. Some of the "missions" from the al-Qaeda is to get rid of non muslim countries and guess what we are the biggest.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

Here's what I saw from the whole Middle-Eastern situation.

Devonin, you are an intelligent being and often point out things that we need to make clear (Not insulting you), so just say something if I am indeed unclear.

9/11: A crapload of fear swept across my body when I got to daycare and our counselor told us that America was under attack. I was supporting the attempt to find Osama, and often made political comics due to my "comic-fetish" from grades 4-7 (They were completely unintelligent, however, but definitely had the message that I wanted Osama gone).

Now, I'm seeing very little progress in our hunt for Bin Laden. On rare occasions, I've heard "He might be....." or "The whitehouse thinks that....." but nothing on actual progress. It also seems to me like we're doing very little to catch the man that, atleast according to the government and media, caused the whole Middle Eastern warzone in the first place.

Iraq War, which I used to (unintelligently) support; I don't mean to sound biased when I say "excuse."

Excuse #1: I basically heard "WMD's, Saddam is threatening."

As far as we know, we attacked before the UN went in to do the inspection. That was a bad move, IMO. Had we known that there were no weapons in there before we attacked, my support for the war might've dithered then and there.

Excuse #2: No WMD's, Saddam is still threatening.

OK, I'm seeing the Iraq troops surrendering, we're getting through the ME, etc. Still no Saddam, deaths are piling up, and the loyal militia that Saddam still has is causing trouble; no more support for this war. I'm disliking Bush now.

Excuse #3: We've killed Saddam, but now must clean up the mess we've made.

Well, the last thing we needed was more fighting, but we've got it now. Insurgeons aren't only attacking us, but are turning on themselves. It's horrible. Deaths in the thousands, we're in the middle of a holy war in which I think we should've stayed out of; seing KIA's on the news are typical news to me now. This had made me think "What if this happened, what if that happened?" A particular question was this: Although Saddam was indeed a ruthless leader, but he kept the fighting sides as separate as he could. I was thinking that if he had a next-in-line, and we kept an eye on him, what you might call a "state of peace" would stay. Problem was, all his next-in-line's are either dead or in hiding. We might've reversed this in what atleast sounds like a simple way: Had we waited for the UN inspection before we dropped the bomb, we could've tried to find a better solution to get a next-in-line to take Saddam's place on the throne. May not sound simple, but it atleast SEEMS like a good idea; feel free to criticize me if it sounds wrong.

So now, we're cleaning up a mess we made, and I can't see us pulling out until we restore peace. I hope it ends well.


Another question I have is the comparisons and contrasts between the situation we were in when we tried to clean up the African genocides and the ME. I've seen Black Hawk Down; I've read about the Somalian Revolution; I've learned about the war in Darfur, and many other horrible things in Africa. I'm in no form or fashion saying that we're being wusses, but I'm rather pissed about our government saying that Africa is too dangerous, due to us suffering heavy losses. However, the ME is probably almost as dangerous as Africa, and we're suffering many more losses right now.

I find our dive into Africa similar to our dive into the ME: We went into an unstable country, we're suffering losses, and we're watching, debating, and making jokes on the sideline.

However, IMO, the African genocide is looking much worse than what's going on in the ME. So I'm asking this: Why aren't we in there? I mean, the people of Iraq were still somewhat stable before we pulled in. There is, however, millions of deaths and counting in Africa. I think we're much better off in Africa than in the ME.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: President Bush

I stopped paying attention after the whole Mission Accomplished deal. Seriously. Mission Accomplished.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

I'm doing some research on the Islamic faith. I'll go ahead and "highlight" things and state my beliefs on them.

They do not They do not regard Muhammad as the founder of a new religion, but as the restorer of the original monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other prophets. Islamic tradition holds that Judaism and Christianity distortedthe messages of these prophets over time either in interpretation, in text, or both.

When comparing religions such as Christianity and Budhism, you can't get much of a connection between them, or see how one proves that the other is supposedly wrong. When you're comparing Islam to Christianity, however, not only are Muslims extremely devout to their religion, but part of their religion is the belief that our faiths are wrong. This might be a good reason why a good portion of the Middle East hates us.

The schism developed in the late 7th century following disagreements over the religious and political leadership of the Muslim Sunni and Shi'a.

Now I see why there are two branches, and it might be part of the reason they're fighting right now.

Those who Those who distorted or ignored the Qur'an or converted to another religion are engulfed in hellfire

Another way to stay more devout to your faith. Also, I recently heard a report that a woman fell in love with a man of another faith. She didn't seem to change faiths, but she got stoned for it. So I guess this belief fuels the Muslims to believe that those of different faiths (Who atleast try to intervene with their beliefs or people) deserve to die.

[JangBoGo]

Re: President Bush

President Bush may be the smartest president in the US history... and I am not kidding...

[devonin]

Re: President Bush

Its still an issue to this day just like the Middle East has been. Haven't you ever heard of the 1000 year war? I am sure you have so it should be no surprise to you that a country is trying to help stop the madness.

"Helping" to stop an issue to which you have contributed in no small way is called 'cleaning up your own mess' not 'being some international hero'

Kind of how there was no proof of WMDs when they "searched" for them but back in the late 90s there was proof of them? Iraq was told to get rid of the WMDs in early 2001 a second and final warning and late 2002 guess what happened, they let the UN inspectors to go there and found nothing. Oh wow thats shocking, if you can tell me now that there is no way you could hide a WMD in 2 years than you are not intelligent.

Oh wow...do you not see what you just said? Let's go through this step by step:
1/ Iraq "has" WMDs
2/ Iraq is told "Get rid of your WMDs"
3/ After a time, inspectors look around and find no WMDs

You know...I think it is -just- as likely that maybe -they listened to what the UN told them- I love how absolutely nobody in the United States seems willing to admit the possibility that the actual reason the inspectors didn't find anything is because Iraq COMPLIED WITH THE UN.

Iraq doesn't have the luxury of being the world's greatest superpower, capable of ignoring anything that is done to it by the international community. The US can point and laugh at the UN because, honestly, what are they going to do about it? But Iraq would be -crushed- by trade embargos, it has almost no chance of standing up on its own without the abilty to trade its oil reserves for needed supplies. Is it really that crazy to suppose that they actually just did what they were told?

For proof of the connection between the too it is between Iraqi and Iran governments. It has never been proved to be official evidence but it doesn't mean it couldn't have been or still be true. I know it must sound like a weak arguement but the possibility at this point is enough to be looked under.

Last I heard, the "Axis of Evil" was widely regarded by non-americans to be a very funny joke. Historically Iraq and Iran -HATE- each other. If either of them thought they could get away with it, the other one would have been invaded solidly ages ago. The Iranians have always percieved Iraq as a pathetic western-wannabe, trying to copy American as much as possible while still claiming to hate the western world. Iraq has historically been of the opinion that Iran is too stuck in the past, unwilling to move forward in the ways needed to being the Middle East into the glory that they most of them feel they deserve.

Further: Even -If- Iraq and Iran were somehow connected...so? Last I checked, the attacks were blamed on "Al Qaeda" which uh...isn't Iran and certainly isn't Iraq.

Options? What options, that was the plan from the get go when invaded iraq. The riddance of the WMDs and with Iraq and its politically correct government would help keep it that way.

There was never a "true" government there to over throw, we went in there to establish one but as you can see its not as easy as it was said on national tv. Heres were being a country that has no threat on a daily basis vs a country that is filled with crime, mass murdering, threats from nuclear weapons get you, we will always have a group that hates america. Always and theres nothing I can do about it. Some of the "missions" from the al-Qaeda is to get rid of non muslim countries and guess what we are the biggest.

Well, for one, Yes there was a true government, just one that you didn't like, and even if you grant that it was one that a lot of the people there didn't like, it was a government and it governed. For two: What gives you the right to decide to go in and establish one? For three: plenty of countries, including America have groups that hate America, going to invade all of them? Lastly: Once again, Al-Qaeda is not Iraq, they are not the same and you have no business claiming one is the other.

[xWnLx Crisco]

Re: President Bush

"Helping" to stop an issue to which you have contributed in no small way is called 'cleaning up your own mess' not 'being some international hero'

Then instead of argue about having a quick pullout, let the Americans fix the problem.

Oh wow...do you not see what you just said? Let's go through this step by step:
1/ Iraq "has" WMDs
2/ Iraq is told "Get rid of your WMDs"
3/ After a time, inspectors look around and find no WMDs

You know...I think it is -just- as likely that maybe -they listened to what the UN told them- I love how absolutely nobody in the United States seems willing to admit the possibility that the actual reason the inspectors didn't find anything is because Iraq COMPLIED WITH THE UN.

Iraq doesn't have the luxury of being the world's greatest superpower, capable of ignoring anything that is done to it by the international community. The US can point and laugh at the UN because, honestly, what are they going to do about it? But Iraq would be -crushed- by trade embargos, it has almost no chance of standing up on its own without the abilty to trade its oil reserves for needed supplies. Is it really that crazy to suppose that they actually just did what they were told?

Yes it is crazy because if someone got away with it once they are most likly going to do it again.

Last I heard, the "Axis of Evil" was widely regarded by non-americans to be a very funny joke. Historically Iraq and Iran -HATE- each other. If either of them thought they could get away with it, the other one would have been invaded solidly ages ago. The Iranians have always percieved Iraq as a pathetic western-wannabe, trying to copy American as much as possible while still claiming to hate the western world. Iraq has historically been of the opinion that Iran is too stuck in the past, unwilling to move forward in the ways needed to being the Middle East into the glory that they most of them feel they deserve.

Further: Even -If- Iraq and Iran were somehow connected...so? Last I checked, the attacks were blamed on "Al Qaeda" which uh...isn't Iran and certainly isn't Iraq.

So your saying there is no al-Qaeda influence in Iraq? Whens the last time you were there fighting againt infidels?

Well, for one, Yes there was a true government, just one that you didn't like, and even if you grant that it was one that a lot of the people there didn't like, it was a government and it governed. For two: What gives you the right to decide to go in and establish one? For three: plenty of countries, including America have groups that hate America, going to invade all of them? Lastly: Once again, Al-Qaeda is not Iraq, they are not the same and you have no business claiming one is the other.

Its the same right as trying to keep the world from becoming a giant free for all nuclear winter.

If the group becomes a big enough problem that invasion is given thought then yes they will most likly be taken care of. Remember congress declares war not the president.

If it wasn't for America's military and direct actions this world would not be the same and possibly would not exist.

[purebloodtexan]

Re: President Bush

President Bush may be the smartest president in the US history... and I am not kidding...

Explain please.

Back up your statements in CT.

[JangBoGo]

Re: President Bush

Do you seriously think that he is THAT dumb?? Bush sure has all of America fooled thinking that he is nothing but a dumbass. Do you seriously think that Bush will tell the truth to the public? If the truth made it out to the public, enemies of the states would surely figure out a way to get us. Thats why his a brilliant actor. It is actually brilliant how we got into Iraq. We only had one purpose in Iraq and that is to drag Iran into a war they do not want to fight. It was suggested that 500,000 troops should be sent into Iraq to accompolish all the missions in Iraq, and if he did this war would've been nothing. President Bush sent only 150,000. Thanks to this, the US soldiers in Iraq are still struggling. This is done because he wants Iran to think that he is indeed incompetent. The only reason why we are in Iraq is because we want the sunnis and the shias cause mass genocide against each other, and it will inevitebaly drag Iran and other surrounding muslim nations such as Saudi Arabia into a war. Iran will expend its resources to this war, and this will save the US the time for the "big one" against China. One can argue that the Camp David Accords was the begenning of World War III.

[archbishopjabber]

Re: President Bush

Look at how much money the guy has spent. Compare the condition of our country before he spent the money, to after he spent all of those resources.

I think I've made my point.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-31-03.html

We are capitalist people. It all boils down to money, and he has been wasting a whole lot of it. Casualties of the Iraq War are insignificant, as are the casualties of 9/11. Obesity and Tobacco kill about 200 times as many people on a yearly basis. The real tragedy is the potential the resources that he has squandered once had.

Instead of the Iraq War and Afghanistan and Homeland Security we could have:

Public Healthcare
Free College
Alternative Energy
Potential Cures to Life threatening Illnesses
Or just a very nice tax break

Either way, spending money to combat terrorists is simply ineffective. 9/11 was nothing more than a lucky shot. It's not worth the spending it takes to defend against it, plain and simple. I think Bush has been an awful president because he cannot manage resources. We need a president with a PhD in economics....