Bush - Bad for the Country

[TheBigDog]

Really, a nation attacked the U.S?

 

A group of cia trained goons flew some planes into some buildings. Tragic yes. Cause to murder more people? No. That's what I call idiot logic. "Logic" typically perpetuated by the U.S. And some of it's arrogant citizens.

 

The'Big'dog "Hey, you didn't, but some people from this area of the world killed some of my friends. So, eh, we're coming to kill more of you than you killed of us... Plus we want your oil. Haha, Take that!"

 

George Bush, huh? Saving the world one evil act at a time.

Every statement above is based upon lies. The slightest hint of rationality in a person lets them know that. Some are driven to these conclusions by being totally certifiable irrational. Others by blinding hatered or some other emotional issues. I don't know what your personal but let it take your misguided slander to a more welcoming environment. If you are going to stay here and participate here is how you begin...

 

Produce evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is true.

 

Bill

[Racoon]

Easy boys...:rolleyes: Lets play nice. :hihi:

 

Even though there are plenty of Politicians who don't. :cup:

 

Donald Rumsfield >>> What do you think of that guy??

I think he's an egotistical little sh*t, and the only reason he hasn't been canned, is that it would prove that there have been some serious screw-ups!

 

Of course wars never go as planned, or lack of plans.

And Always cost more than they say it will.

 

How much has this War in Iraq cost?? To Tax-payers?

Does anyone have some numbers?

 

Whats the Body count at?

Not including all the Men who will be returned home with missing limbs and Post Traumatic Stress disorders.

[Spiked Blood]

Every statement above is based upon lies. The slightest hint of rationality in a person lets them know that. Some are driven to these conclusions by being totally certifiable irrational. Others by blinding hatered or some other emotional issues. I don't know what your personal but let it take your misguided slander to a more welcoming environment. If you are going to stay here and participate here is how you begin...

 

Produce evidence demonstrating that what you are saying is true.

 

Bill

 

Wow, someone clearly has issues. Relax, buddy, I'm not here to take your life. I'm here to learn.

 

The CIA trained and helped create fighting squads in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets, correct?

 

One of those organizations used that training and funding to later attack the U.S?

 

The U.S invaded Afghanistan fighting against the organizations it had previously helped create and train. In essence, The U.S decides who terrorists are. As Afghanistan proves, allies become enemies, very easily.

 

I'm not making any outrageous claims. These are all facts, if anything is untrue, I apologize.

 

All I asked was that someone show me something good George Bush has done for the world. Jesus, I didn't think it would be this much hard work.

[Racoon]

 

All I asked was that someone show me something good George Bush has done for the world. Jesus, I didn't think it would be this much hard work.

 

Finding the Good in Bush is hard work! :rolleyes:

Especially as it relates to the Free World in a new Millenia.

 

Conspiracies and Covert operations are hard to prove, because they hide them; and make you seem crazy if you believe that They Are Possible!

[TheBigDog]

Much better, but still off the mark for accuracy. You and I had this same discussion just 16 days ago here - post 104. History is fun.

 

Bill

[TheBigDog]

Finding the Good in Bush is hard work! :rolleyes:

Especially as it relates to the Free World in a new Millenia.

 

Conspiracies and Covert operations are hard to prove, because they hide them; and make you seem crazy if you believe that They Are Possible!

Hypothetically possible does not equal true or real. Conspiracy theories take the hypothetical and run with it in the absence of supporting data and in the ignorance of refuting data. Shining the light of facts upon conspiracies usually settles the issue for those without an agenda that has a emotional need for the conspiracy to be true. Have a theory? Lets examine the facts and see what turns up.

 

Bill

[Rebiu]

He recognized the 9/11 attack as an act of war

My Merriam Webster defines war as a state of open and armed fighting between states or nations. War are poverty, War on drugs are metaphors designed to stir the emotions of the populace. How can terrorism ever surrender? How can this war ever end? If it never ends then it is not a war but simple the way things are.

and responded clearly

The number of terrorist attacks in Iraq and outside Iraq have gone up drastically since 9/11. This despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent and tens of thousands killed and permanently disabled. What is it you think he did so well? Do you really think Iraq will have a stable democratic government soon? Do you think the armed militias of the Shia, Sunni, and Kurds will allow anything less than a dissolution of this artificial state that was designed from the start to be fractious and unstable? Does anyone believe that anything less that a brutal dictator could hold this country together? Iraq has far less freedom, security, and individual rights now then it did under Saddam. If he was the problem then why are things now worse?

 

The truth is that the CIA very closely predicted the consequences of an attempt to occupy Iraq in the manner that we have. Bush ignored this and the same advice from his father. His administration said it would be cheap, quick and easy in spite of this information.

 

Afghanistan

This country did not attack the United States on 9/11. Elements of the Taliban sheltered Bin Laden. The US rolled in and took over the government while allowing Bin Laden to escape. This country no less of a haven for terrorism than it was before.

 

Iraq

Was the most secular, pro western nation in the middle east before the first gulf war. The abuses by Saddam we no worse than those of the Turks and Iranians against the Kurds or the Russians against the Chechnyans. He was as big an enemy to the fundamentalist terrorist as we are. While Saddam was in charge of Iraq there was virtually no functional international terrorism infrastructure in Iraq. Now that Bush is running Iraq there sure is.

 

Saudi Arabia

Ruled by another brutal dictator, source of the money and terrorists as well as publicly broadcast fundraisers for the families of martyred terrorists.

 

Pakistan

Ruled by a brutal dictator, source of terrorist, money, base of operations.

 

Iran

Fundamentalist theocracy that employs brutal suppression of population, funds terrorism, provides terrorists, and terrorist training camps.

 

It seems that Iraq was the worst possible choice of countries to attack in an imaginary war on terrorism.

that such acts will not be tolerated by the United States against any nation.

Bill

You mean he showed that if you attack use we will attack country that is completely unsupportive of you cause while leaving you and you supporters unmolested.

 

Given the resources Bush has expended I think he could have gotten far better results through law enforcement, diplomacy, limited and cooperative military action, alliances, economic incentives ect. If the united state were to spend say 200 billion on alternative fuel research it would go much farther in reducing the terrorism threat than the frat boy wars.

[Racoon]

Hypothetically possible does not equal true or real. Conspiracy theories take the hypothetical and run with it in the absence of supporting data and in the ignorance of refuting data. Have a theory? Lets examine the facts and see what turns up.

 

Its usually the opposite BigDog.

Conspiracies are true stories; Only the Facts have been changed! :hyper: :hihi:

 

I forgive you because you are from Ohio. :D

On the Left Coast, we think Bush is Bull$h*! (well, the majority of voters that is)

[CraigD]

He recognized the 9/11 attack as an act of war and responded clearly that such acts will not be tolerated by the United States against any nation.

The Executive of the US can't recognize an act of war, or act upon it, except as authorized by The War Powers Resolution (1973 Public Law 93-148). In the case of the use of military force following the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks, the executive powers authorized by this act were not invoked. The 10/7/01 attack and subsequent invasion and occupation of Afghanistan was authorized by Congress on 9/18/01 by Public Law 107-40, Authorization for Use of Military Force.

 

The 3/20/03 attack and subsequent invasion of Iraq was authorized by Congress 10/10/02 by Public Law 107-243, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002

 

George W. Bush has upheld the US Constitution in carrying out his role as commander in chief of the US military since 9/11. Personally, though I’d consider not doing this “bad”, I’m unable to consider Bush’s lawfulness in this area either a “good” or a “bad” thing “done for the world”. Although I suspect him of making substantial and persistent errors in his role as CIC that have resulted in “bad things”, I have neither the information nor the practical theoretical model to convincingly support or refute my suspicions.

 

By the same logic, if history proves some recent US military actions, particularly the 2002 Iraq War, to be things that should not have been done at all, Congress, not the Executive, nor TheBigDog, should be held to blame. With enumerated powers comes enumerated responsibility.

[Buffy]

Good and bad are judgement calls, but they're still worthy. Polarization does not help, and blindness to different opinions is probably the number one reason why political discourse is a complete failure these days. Beware that there are those in the middle who agree with the strategies but think the implementation sucks, or vice versa. When Pat Buchanan and George Will start lambasting the White House, it might be time to sit up and listen.

 

There are those of us who think the biggest crimes have been "stylistic". No matter what your stripe, you should take a look at this link to Steve Colbert's White House Correspondent's speech, which left both the left and the right dumbfounded with something major to think about the style of the current administration...

 

Be careful *all* of you about some of the absolutist positions taken in this thread: extreme positions are not very persuasive...

 

Radically middle-of-the-road,

Buffy

[Racoon]

When Pat Buchanan start lambasting the White House, it might be time to sit up and listen.

 

There are those of us who think the biggest crimes have been "stylistic". Steve Colbert's White House Correspondent's speech, which left both the left and the right dumbfounded with something major to think about the style of the current administration...

 

 

Pat Buchanan can be found bickering on the McLoughlin Group.

His ideas are middle right. He might be upset because his bid for presidency got smacked down like WWF.

 

Steve Colbert had a tough job. Its grind em up' and spit 'em out.

They got a new guy now.

 

Good perspective Buffy. :hihi:

I have a problem with the secretive style. What are they hiding?

 

Todays forcast is sunny, and the terror threat level is Orange

[GAHD]

No, it's simply reality. Your response is typical of someone from a nation whose citizens have not been attacked by these radicals yet and has already bowed to adopting Sharia Law. Tell us for example, why should muslim women in Canada have any more obstacles than any non-muslim woman in Canada when filing for divorce, are they less of a citizen?

WEll this is certainly not about Bush but I will gladly point out that Participation under the Arbitration Act is voluntary, and that it is not limited to Islamics(Rabbis and priests have also used the act to adjudicate squabbles). This is an example of multiculturalism in practice. :hihi:

 

I'm sorry C1ay, your interpritation of the information was biased.

 

Now back to Bush...

[C1ay]

Now back to Bush...

Sorry, moron is as strong as I'm gonna get on Bush.....

[TheFaithfulStone]

With enumerated powers comes enumerated responsibility.

 

With enumerated powers comes plausible deniability and the homeopathy of responsibility. Just distribute the blame until no one takes enough of it to be actually responsible for anything.

 

"The buck stops here." - Harry Truman. (Not with the FEMA Secretary, or Congress, or the People, or anywhere else.)

 

Re: Iraq. If Iraq succeeds it will be a foreign policy coup for the US. We will have a stable, friendly democracy in the middle east. Let's face it, the best way to fight terrorism is with cheeseburgers and money. Give people some stuff, and they're much less willing to die for "the cause." A foothold in Iraq would go a long way to establishing a lasting peace in the middle east.

 

On the other hand, if it doesn't succeed really well, it could very well provoke a global conflagration between everyone who's poor, and everyone who's rich. And it wouldn't be an easy win for the US, with it's tanks and bombs and robot airplanes. Read Forever Peace by Joe Haldeman for an exploration of that fact. (And a silly hippy resolution.)

 

Iraq is a HUGE gamble. I'm not sure Bush realizes how important it is, or he would have long since committed us 100%. Not the 35-40% we're currently trying to get away with.

 

TFS

[Buffy]

"The buck stops here." - Harry Truman.

"No one could have forseen [insert favorite unintended consequence of a short sighted policy here]." -- Dubya, Condi, Dick, et. al.

If Iraq succeeds it will be a foreign policy coup for the US. We will have a stable, friendly democracy in the middle east. Let's face it, the best way to fight terrorism is with cheeseburgers and money.

Absolutely, and that's why its missed that the middle of the roaders of both stripes actually supported the concept of removing Saddam, it was just *executed* in the most bone-headed stupid way possible (and surprisingly, by some very smart folks! Rummy is *not* stupid, he just won't listen to anyone else).

I'm not sure Bush realizes how important it is, or he would have long since committed us 100%. Not the 35-40% we're currently trying to get away with.

Actually, this is the policy that Rummy has chained himself to and won't let go: Contrary to Sun Tzu, Napoleon, Patton and Colin Powell (who was screaming across the table at him in cabinet meetings), he does not think that you need boots on the ground to control territory; all you need is smart bombs and special forces. Oh and by the way, you can even do this when you dismantle the entire native police and armed forces leaving a complete vacuum to control a restive and insurgent filled population. This is stupid, but its based on a nice theory (totally at odds with reality, but then this is a faith-based initiative isn't it?), but the real reason he won't change it is stubbornness combined with the desire to slash budgets to slash taxes and shake things up (creative destruction: another popular CEO trick that actually rarely works in reality because no thought is ever put into unintended consequences).

 

Bush has completely hitched his star to this train, he just refuses to believe there's another train coming in the opposite direction.

 

Casey Jones you'd better, watch your speed, :shrug:

Buffy

[Rebiu]

Re: Iraq. If Iraq succeeds it will be a foreign policy coup for the US. We will have a stable, friendly democracy in the middle east.

Like we succeeded when we put Saddam in power. Like the 1953 CIA led overthrow of Mohamed Mossadeq, Iran’s democratically elected prime minister because he was going to nationalize the oilfields, and installing the Shah, a brutal dictator that managed to hold onto power for a quarter of a century before a popular revolution removed him. Puppet states are never stable or democratic.

 

Iraq is a HUGE gamble. I'm not sure Bush realizes how important it is, or he would have long since committed us 100%. Not the 35-40% we're currently trying to get away with.

 

TFS

There is no gamble. There is certain failure. As long as you believe we are outsiders trying to solve regional problems you will not understand the source of terrorism. The true picture is that the US and its allies have created these situations with our short-term goal oriented policies. When the US understands that a stable government is more important that securing oil company’s revenues we will find success. We are the problem.

 

The splitup of Iraq is already underway. The Kurds have autonomous government as well as regional and independant control of their oilfields. They are in armed conflict with Turkey and Iran. A conflict that the rest of Iraq pays no attention to.

 

The Sunni and Shiite regions have their own militias and when the central puppet government tries to send troops from on sect to another sects territory they all resign on the spot.

 

Bush thinks that Iran is the source of the Shiite power and unrest and wants to broaden the conflict to bring his favorite foreign policy tool to bear, the US military, so he invents this Iran nuclear threat fantasy. The Israelis have a very significant arsenal of nuclear weapons including sub launched harpoon antiship missiles that have been modified into nuclear warhead carriers. Now that Israel’s closest ally and benefactor has legitimized a preemptive doctrine Iran has a very real and legitimate need for a nuclear deterrent of its own.

 

Bush is reluctant to tackle Iran as it holds a very strong position. Iran is large and rugged. The Iranian military is 850,000 strong and the US is already fully occupied in Iraq. Any attack on Iraq would result in Iran occupying Shia southern Iraq. Iran has the capacity to disrupt its own oil supplies as well as the oil passing through pipelines and tankers near their territory. If the Iranians hit one oil tanker then tanker insurance could get so high as to shut down tanker traffic. Who is ready for $100+ a barrel.

 

The Iranians understand the situation better than Bush does as they slap the US around they gain more and more support in rest of the world.

 

When on considers the realities of the US position it becomes crystal clear that there can be no success. The only question is how long to we dump money and lives down the drain in a vain attempt to validate the prophecies of the neocon.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well Rebiu, that's all pretty much true.

 

If Iraq was a stable democratic, free country mostly free of sectarian violence, then it would be good for freedom and democracy and all that.

 

Whether or not we really want that is beside the point - that's what we say we want.

 

As to whether it was a smart gamble I sincerely doubt it. There could have been a chance to turn Iraq into a stable and free country. I happen to think that it simply could not have been gone about more wrongly - but that doesn't mean I don't think it's a worthwhile endeavor (spreading democracy to the middle east, I mean, not conquering random countries.)

 

TFS