Is George W Bush a complete moron ?

[TheBigDog]

And the one common denominator amongst these countries not being invaded by the US is that they all lack any substantial oil reserves. Once again, this is the impression created by Bush.

The US has not attacked any country without the consent of the UN. When the UN gets off its *** and wants to take action against those regimes that you list trust that the US will be there in force. Unless you prefer when the US acts unilaterally, something that has yet to happen.

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

No. It isn't an important tool. International perception is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts. (See links) To put it another way, we could either do what we think is best, or we could do what others think is best. Which would you choose?

Not wanting to drift too far off-topic, but diplomacy is one of the most important wrenches in any leader's toolbox. If Hitler, for instance, used the honey brush of diplomacy instead of his war machine, world war 2 could've been avoided and the whole world would've lived in a cloud-coocoo nazi setup today. That's how powerful popular perception is. You cannot beat your ideology down someone's throat with a stick. But you can get them to swallow it in tiny doses lubricated by the sweetest honey until they've eaten the whole thing. Bush missed this opportunity.

The statement that 'International perception is irrelevant' might be one of the factors why world opinion of the US is dropping, and why international support for Bush in his military adventures are negative across the board (except, of course in the UK). You can't say this and then be disappointed when your former allies like Germany and France flat-out say they're not supporting your actions. Use the honey brush.

Are you seriously suggesting we attempt all that simultaneously? Let's just start with the ones that threaten our security and go from there.

No. I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. But the impression created by Bush is that the US is only serious about interfering in these kind of countries when the flow of resources to the US is being threatened - and that the human rights violations by the dictators are merely a smokescreen to hide the true intentions of the invasion. This might be true or not - but the bad diplomacy practised by Bush in this specific case makes the rest of the world seriously doubt the US's approach towards world affairs.

And the oil accusations are without support.

Be that as it may - diplomacy is all about smoke and mirrors in any case. And I have clearly stated in my previous post that I'm not claiming any truth towards the oil allegations - but the US's actions opens the door for doubt wide enough to park a 747.

The US has not attacked any country without the consent of the UN. When the UN gets off its *** and wants to take action against those regimes that you list trust that the US will be there in force. Unless you prefer when the US acts unilaterally, something that has yet to happen.

Hans Blix was running up and down between New York and Baghdad, saying to the world that no WMD's have been found. Bush invaded. No WMD's have been found. Hans Blix was missioned by the UN to do his job, and deliver his report. This smells like unilateral action to me... unless the fact that Tony Blair will follow Bush right to the doors of hell, being the good lapdog that he is, will make it count as bilateral action. But surely not multilateral... and clearly against the what the UN decided, which was based on the Blix report.

[GreekTTC]

I haven't read all replies, but here's a quicky from me to y'all:

 

One of many large problems I have with GWB is his religion and religious views. We can debate religion all day long, but at the end, it's my contention that one thing remains: it has no place in a government. Or at least in the United States government.

 

Plus, GW's religion has made him a hypocrite. He's a theocratic dictator of sorts. To paraphrase his words, he went into Iraq because he felt it was what God wanted him to do.

 

Why are we in the Middle East again?

 

Oh yeah, we're there to stop religious extremist dictators.

 

Bush sucks like a black hole.

[Southtown]

That's how powerful popular perception is. You cannot beat your ideology down someone's throat with a stick. But you can get them to swallow it in tiny doses lubricated by the sweetest honey until they've eaten the whole thing. Bush missed this opportunity.

You can lead a horse to water, friend. And I agree, it would be ideal if he actually drinks. But not every nation has honorable intentions.

 

If a contengiency for resolution sounds something like "Israel off the map", is that actually on the table? Is that a reasonable compromise for peace? Compromise with an unswerving tyrant is nothing short of total defeat.

"

What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid-'30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.

" --

Op.Ed., Walter E. Williams

 

No. I'm not suggesting anything like that at all. But the impression created by Bush is that the US is only serious about interfering in these kind of countries when the flow of resources to the US is being threatened - and that the human rights violations by the dictators are merely a smokescreen to hide the true intentions of the invasion.

I just think they should reserve judgement until the facts are in.

 

Be that as it may - diplomacy is all about smoke and mirrors in any case. And I have clearly stated in my previous post that I'm not claiming any truth towards the oil allegations - but the US's actions opens the door for doubt wide enough to park a 747.

Again, that should not concern us until there's evidence to support it.

[Eclogite]

The US has not attacked any country without the consent of the UN.

The invasion of Iraq took place without the consent of the UN.

[C1ay]

Not wanting to drift too far off-topic....

:hihi: Read the original post and then the last couple of dozen posts. This thread has been quite off topic for a while now...

[Spiked Blood]

No. It isn't an important tool. International perception is irrelevant. What is relevant are the facts. (See links) To put it another way, we could either do what we think is best, or we could do what others think is best. Which would you choose?

 

It is no surprise to me that the U.S rep' just keeps plummeting.

 

Are you seriously suggesting we attempt all that simultaneously? Let's just start with the ones that threaten our security and go from there.

 

And the oil accusations are without support.

 

Scientists don't believe in coincidence, do they?:D

 

That is not entirely correct.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

 

http://www.ecu.edu/lib/govdoc/waronterror.cfm

 

Dig hard enough and I'm sure you'll 'find' Al Qaeda 'links' with many countries. It just depends on how much you need to find it, and how far back you wish to go. There is NO proof that Iraq had any involvement with 9/11. EVen if there is a minute connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it DOES NOT prove that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

 

For that matter, what proof is there that it was 'Al Qaeda', because you know, I could make a tape claiming to have planned it all, and dump it in a house somewhere. It doesn't make it true, it just makes me an odd duck. Pay me enough money, give me protection, and I will confess... OK, not me, because I have certain values.

 

 

You can lead a horse to water, friend. And I agree, it would be ideal if he actually drinks. But not every nation has honorable intentions.

 

If a contengiency for resolution sounds something like "Israel off the map", is that actually on the table? Is that a reasonable compromise for peace? Compromise with an unswerving tyrant is nothing short of total defeat.

"

What Europeans say about what should be done about terrorist states should fall on deaf ears. Their history of weakness and cowardice during the 1930s goes a long way toward accounting for the 60 million lives lost during World War II. During the mid-'30s, when Hitler started violating the arms limitations of the Versailles Treaty, France and Britain alone could have handily defeated him, but they pursued the appeasement route.

" --

Op.Ed., Walter E. Williams

 

That, is frankly, utterly disgusting.

 

1: Wishing to preserve life is not cowardice.

2: Referencing events from 70 years ago has what to do with (a)current events(:hihi: Europeans today?

 

I just think they should reserve judgement until the facts are in.

Again, that should not concern us until there's evidence to support it.

 

I do not, in any way, understand your point. The facts are in. Bush invaded Iraq, without reason. Blix said there were no WMD. Bush invaded anyway.

 

To the few that are defending Bush, I fear, you are under the impression because he is your president that it would be unpatriotic to not do so. I guess that's how many Germans felt during the Nazi 'regime'.;)

 

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

[TheBigDog]

There is NO proof that Iraq had any involvement with 9/11. EVen if there is a minute connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it DOES NOT prove that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

Good, we have found common ground between you and President Bush and his administration. They have never claimed there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11. They have only ever claimed a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

 

Bill

[Spiked Blood]

Good, we have found common ground between you and President Bush and his administration. They have never claimed there was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11. They have only ever claimed a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

 

Bill

 

Between 95 and 97 Osama paid ONE member of the Iraqi military money.

 

The 'link' proves what? That they talked? They had tea? What?

 

Saddam ruled Iraq, not some pissant soldier.

 

No connection. That 'evidence' is not only weak, it's embarrassing.

 

Defend Bush by going as far back in time as you want. It changes nothing.

[TheBigDog]

Between 95 and 97 Osama paid ONE member of the Iraqi military money.

 

The 'link' proves what? That they talked? They had tea? What?

 

Saddam ruled Iraq, not some pissant soldier.

 

No connection. That 'evidence' is not only weak, it's embarrassing.

 

Defend Bush by going as far back in time as you want. It changes nothing.

Please tell me the minimum number of meetings required between terrorists and a nation state that is belligerent toward you to comprise a link. Is one meeting not enough to strike an agreement? Perhaps you are more familiar with the etiquette of terrorism than I.

 

Bill

[Spiked Blood]

Please tell me the minimum number of meetings required between terrorists and a nation state that is belligerent toward you to comprise a link. Is one meeting not enough to strike an agreement? Perhaps you are more familiar with the etiquette of terrorism than I.

 

Bill

 

How can 'Osama having one iraq soldier in his back pocket' prove that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies? Were in unison?

 

Come one now, lets be reasonable.

 

If I meet a terrorist, join their 'mission', does it mean that Britain is joined with that organization?

[TheBigDog]

The invasion of Iraq took place without the consent of the UN.

Resolution 687.

[Eclogite]

Resolution 687 relates to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (an act which has some historical justification, since the partition of Iraq into Iraq and Kuwait was carried out by the west without consultation with the Iraqui people). Resolution 687 does not justify, nor did the UN condone, the US led invasion of Iraq three years ago.

[Southtown]

Dig hard enough and I'm sure you'll 'find' Al Qaeda 'links' with many countries. It just depends on how much you need to find it, and how far back you wish to go. There is NO proof that Iraq had any involvement with 9/11. EVen if there is a minute connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, it DOES NOT prove that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

 

For that matter, what proof is there that it was 'Al Qaeda', because you know, I could make a tape claiming to have planned it all, and dump it in a house somewhere. It doesn't make it true, it just makes me an odd duck. Pay me enough money, give me protection, and I will confess... OK, not me, because I have certain values.

Did you even read the links so as to produce a relevant response? Or is a generic defense all you can muster?

 

That, is frankly, utterly disgusting.

 

1: Wishing to preserve life is not cowardice.

2: Referencing events from 70 years ago has what to do with (a)current events(:hihi: Europeans today?

1) Unless you refuse to employ force to do so.

2) It's an appropriate case study of the exact type of situation.

 

I do not, in any way, understand your point. The facts are in. Bush invaded Iraq, without reason. Blix said there were no WMD. Bush invaded anyway.

Stick to the subject, friend. I referred to facts that indicate Bush 1) used humanitarian oppression as a "smokescreen" to 2) invade countries soley for the oil. You're reply has no relevance.

 

To the few that are defending Bush, I fear, you are under the impression because he is your president that it would be unpatriotic to not do so. I guess that's how many Germans felt during the Nazi 'regime'.;)

 

George Bush: "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - just so long I'm the dictator." December 18, 2000

To the many who criticize Bush, I don't care how great your numbers, you won't get very far without a valid argument.

 

And you do realize that Bush's statement above pertains to the drudgery of democracy, do you not?

[Southtown]

Between 95 and 97 Osama paid ONE member of the Iraqi military money.

 

The 'link' proves what? That they talked? They had tea? What?

 

Saddam ruled Iraq, not some pissant soldier.

 

No connection. That 'evidence' is not only weak, it's embarrassing.

 

Defend Bush by going as far back in time as you want. It changes nothing.

How can 'Osama having one iraq soldier in his back pocket' prove that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies? Were in unison?

 

Come one now, lets be reasonable.

 

If I meet a terrorist, join their 'mission', does it mean that Britain is joined with that organization?

Again you didn't even read those two links so as to post an intelligent response. There were high level Iraqis indicated to have connections with al-Qaeda leaders, namely Saddam himself.

[Spiked Blood]

Did you even read the links so as to produce a relevant response? Or is a generic defense all you can muster?

 

I'm sorry, I tried to read your links, but I kept being tripped up by big confusing words like : Alleged, suggested, possible, etc.

 

I did try to read on, however, when I read dates like 1992, 1993, I realised you must have posted the wrong link.

1) Unless you refuse to employ force to do so.

2) It's an appropriate case study of the exact type of situation.

 

I think the U.S has more in comparison with Germany than Iraq has of Germany.

And you do realize that Bush's statement above pertains to the drudgery of democracy, do you not?

 

You do realise that Bush, however, was deadly serious?

[TheBigDog]

Resolution 687 relates to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait (an act which has some historical justification, since the partition of Iraq into Iraq and Kuwait was carried out by the west without consultation with the Iraqui people). Resolution 687 does not justify, nor did the UN condone, the US led invasion of Iraq three years ago.

This was the cease fire agreement that ended the Gulf War. Iraq violated it, so the cease fire ended. That is my simple perspective on it.

 

It is documented that Iraq violated it time and time again with numerous additional resolutions by the UN. Eventually 1441 was passed by the UN stating that there would be serious consequences. Invasion seems to fit that bill of a serious consequence.

 

Bill