Bush Was Right

[Rory]

Well stated Piper. Britney I honestly think your about as volatile as the whole Middle East at the moment. I like how everyone just rags and rags on about Bush being wrong and etc etc. Ever think he's got a solid plan in motion? I mean once Iraq is stabilized and is setup in the democratic world hey guys look a valid staging point in case any Middle Eastern nation decides to do something they will regret. I am not saying this is his plan but who knows were not Bush.

Britney also if most Americans hated Bush how come I don't see articles upon articles constantly streaming in of constant protesting outside the White House? Wheres the public outcry? I mean I am positive if most Americans were ranting and raving about how bad Bush is I would be hearing the chatter up here in Sask. It's a quiet day here, I should be able to hear it.... I mean millions upon millions upon millions of Americans ranting and raving in the streets in protest constantly...

 

[Fry]

If most Americans hated President Bush, he would NOT have been RE-ELECTED.


Doesn't take an IQ of 160 to know that.

 

[Thirstyson]

Stop putting words in BS's mouth. She's certainly the most elegant poster on this site when it comes to getting a non-conservative point of view across. There's a reason why most people don't even try.

 

[Britney Spears]

Alrighty. Iraq is not unstable because the US is making it so? Do we agree on this? US troops are not going around to destabalise the country.

Well, was Bush RIGHT?

However, the reasons for going in in the first place were, IMHO, honourable.

You mean the ones that Bush put out to the public? Well, sure. But do you believe him?

Thats why there are official channels to report such incidents. I was referring to people who villify the police for anything they do (whether it really is wrong, like a butt kicking, or percieved, like getting pulled over for speeding by 'those lazy cops with nothing better to do but pull us over') while at the same time living under their protection and complaining when something does happen, even though they villify the police for doing what could have prevented said bad incident from happening...

Where did I say anything even remotely resembling this? Let's start again. Was Bush right about Iraq?

You know, I am just not sure how to take these comments, on one hand lefties point out that GW is stupid, etc and then on the other hand they are trying to say that he leads some super secret plot to rule the world.

I never said any of that, but it is my suspicion that Bush himself is not the brains behind the operation. Was he right?

Britney also if most Americans hated Bush how come I don't see articles upon articles constantly streaming in of constant protesting outside the White House? Wheres the public outcry? I mean I am positive if most Americans were ranting and raving about how bad Bush is I would be hearing the chatter up here in Sask. It's a quiet day here, I should be able to hear it.... I mean millions upon millions upon millions of Americans ranting and raving in the streets in protest constantly...

I'm not you, so who the heck knows why you do or don't hear anything? I just gave you ELEVEN(11) different links from 2003-2006 to support my assertion, but I can't make you or Fry read them, so Rory, Fry, I'm afraid our correspondence must now come to an end.

 

[Fry]

I bet I could find links about how great Bush is... it's not a matter of what websites say or not.

I'll repeat myself, because it seems that in your ranting, you're glancing, not reading.

If so many Americans hate President Bush, why did the majority vote him BACK INTO OFFICE?

Iraq had already begun, so answer that one.

 

[a_majoor]

Although I can't say I an 100% accurate with the lyrics of the song, they make reference to such things as:

1. The hot economy, low unemployment and increasing revenues coming into the treasury department; all spurred by the tax cut. (given the time frame of the tax cut and impact of these effects, not to mention past economic history, the correlation is as close to 100% as you are likely to get).

2. The marginalization of Syria in Lebanon. The Lebanese have detested the occupation of their country by Syria for decades, but have been unable to do anything about it until after OIF. Why is that?

3. The overthrow of despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The people of these nations are making efforts to build consensual states where none existed before, a project that is literally the work of a generation or more. So far we have seen 3-4 years of work which is being opposed by armed groups with no interest in consensual societies. Although the jury is out (and even consensual societies can fall off the rails), the progress and prognosis is far better than most people predicted.

4. The exposure of various WMD/nuclear weapons programs and proliferation such as North Korea, Pakistan, Lybia, Iran. Lybia has publicly given up its program (especially surprising since it was unknown for the most part) after OIF. Unfortunately, there has not been as much progress on the other fronts.

I would certainly take the Bush administration to task for many failings, mostly to do with domestic policy and by far the greatest one being the lack of restraint in domestic spending, followed closely by the feeble efforts to modernize the entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid (where are the personal accounts and Health savings plans?), with the out of control immigration situation being number three on my list. Good thing I am not a voter in the United States, I see one party with a coherent foreign policy and one without, and both parties without any clear leadership or management of domestic issues.

No wonder people are confused.

 

[Fry]

Right in what? Invading Iraq? I'll assume that is it, seeing it seems to be the discussion at hand.

I am of two minds. Yes, he was right. Saddam was a bad man, running a cruel regime under which the Sunni minority was persecuting the majority Shia's and Kurds. He had to go, as did the current Iraq. However, the current Iraq war could have waited, IMHO. There are other more pressing issues to deal with (Iran, and radical Islam). Saddam was not a radical Islamist, just an 'evil' (I use that in a none-religious way) tyrant. Therefore, I say, the US should have waited...knowing what we know now. But at the time, the US was justified in invading. They suspected WMD's, had what they thought was enough proof, and Saddam's time was up.

So through that jumble of words, my opinion? Yes, he was right in invading Iraq. But, he could have waited.

I do. None of us have flys on the wall in the White House, so we cannot be sure what went on. Personally, the WMD's were hyped up way to much. But, he would never have been able to go in on the premise that 'he's a bad dude, let's git him'. Wouldn't have flown with the Liberal minded people who like keeping people like Saddam around (not sure why). But overall, I believe his premises for going in, I just think he presented them in the wrong order.

I was responding to your response to my example. And..yes.

I think George Bush is smarter then you give him credit for. Sure, he's said some dumb sounding things (so did Cretin..I mean Chretien). That does not make him an idiot.

Survey's are never accurate and stats can be screwed with easily, especially by the media.

And to add some comic relief to prove that a) I can laugh at myself and b) Kerry was a weiner...

http://www.jibjab.com/Home.aspx

And watch the video called 'My Land'.

I agree as well. Many people here say that Bush had no right to capture Sadaam. Why they think this, I do not know. He was wanted for years for the crimes he's committed, and I'm sure there are many that are relieved that he isn't  in power anymore.

The step to developing nations such as Iraq is to dismantle this 'every man for himself' warfare that's been going on overthere for years. The people want a stable government and a safe place for their children, but the guns do the talking. Anyone who argues that  the liberation of Iraq and the capture of Sadaam Hussein was wrong, unjustified, and stupd... Is just as bad as Sadaam himself. Period.

 

[Britney Spears]

1. The hot economy, low unemployment and increasing revenues coming into the treasury department; all spurred by the tax cut. (given the time frame of the tax cut and impact of these effects, not to mention past economic history, the correlation is as close to 100% as you are likely to get).

I will respectfully disagree with this. The style of tax cuts a la Reagan has not proven to be effective as an economic stimulus, hence the reason why the economy went to the crapper during the Bush I Administration resulting in Clinton's election. In particular, the underlying premesis of Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, is of questionable applicability to the real world. See <a href=http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6908/12-01-10PercentTaxCut.pdf>This report</a>(PDF file) for some more in depth analysis.  In any case, I am of the opinion that the ability of any one president to meaningfully influence the economy during his term is very limited. There are just too many external factors beyond his control, and measurable macroeconomic effects are not apparent until some time into the future. In short, I don't think Bush is any more responsible for the current moderate economic growth than Clinton was reponsible for the longest (8 years) period of sustained economic growth in US history. Let us wait and see.

2. The marginalization of Syria in Lebanon. The Lebanese have detested the occupation of their country by Syria for decades, but have been unable to do anything about it until after OIF. Why is that?

Lebanese politics is... complex, to say the least. Why could the Lebanese(The anti-Syrian ones anyway) themselves not have simply decided they'd had enough? Do you have any evidence that the US led invasion of Iraq, or any particular action on the part of Bush, was responsible for this? To say that "The Lebanese have detested the occupation of their country by Syria for decades, " is a rather simplistic viewpoint.

3. The overthrow of despotic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. The people of these nations are making efforts to build consensual states where none existed before, a project that is literally the work of a generation or more. So far we have seen 3-4 years of work which is being opposed by armed groups with no interest in consensual societies. Although the jury is out (and even consensual societies can fall off the rails), the progress and prognosis is far better than most people predicted.

The jury is indeed out, but would you agree that the occupation of Iraq has been grossly mismanaged? I'm sure you've read that recent army war college study. Also many people, myself included, are of the opinion that concentrating on Afghanistan first would have been a vastly better route.

4. The exposure of various WMD/nuclear weapons programs and proliferation such as North Korea, Pakistan, Lybia, Iran. Lybia has publicly given up its program (especially surprising since it was unknown for the most part) after OIF. Unfortunately, there has not been as much progress on the other fronts.

Don't you think the proliferation could be a RESULT of the threat of unilateral military intervention by the US? Do you think that Iraninan progress on attaining a nuclear capability was sped up, or slowed as a result of OIF? I'm not seeing a great deal of progress with wither Pakistan or NK, So Libya giving up their non-existent nukes would be the only "victory" here.

They suspected WMD's, had what they thought was enough proof, and Saddam's time was up.

No they didn't. The AMERICAN people may have thought there was enough proof, until they found out that Bush co. had pulled most of the "proof" out of their @ss. It was a big deal a while ago so I trust you won't need a link for that. So was he still right?

Survey's are never accurate and stats can be screwed with easily, especially by the media.

So all 8 of the surveys I put up are inaccurate? Since it's been a while since my stats course, why don't you pull out the stats texbook and show me how they are inaccurate? I don't understand why we are getting stuck on this point. Even the Bush admin doesn't pretend that their actions are wildly popular around the world, when was this ever a matter of debate?

 

[couchcommander]

Oh wow Britney...

I leave for a monring... wow, talk about a hornets nest. Anywho, good luck to you sir.

Re: my bit of responsibility for this..

a_majoor, you are right in saying that many democrats (and others) bought what the US administration was saying. They were wrong as well, as should be ashamed for being so gullible, when even Chretien (*snicker*) asked for more evidence.

Re: the song. I was aware of excactly what the lyrics said. However, it appeared to me that the message the song was trying to encapsulate was "We were right all along, so "... my point was that well, actually, you (Bush & Co.) were wrong about a whole lot of things, and quite possibly shouldn't be dancing around to the opposit effect just because some good things happened.


*edit*... well I am trying to squeeze myself out of this topic, I would just like to point out, rather unpartisanly at this point, that the stats that Britney was referring to re: the hate are pretty solid (unfortunately... I love the states, just not Bush.... or their border guards... *grumble*).

 

[Britney Spears]

And yes, Bush is still right.

You mean he was right to lie and deceive his people into a war they would otherwise have opposed, or right to think "they'll fall for it, for sure"? 

 

[Britney Spears]

Sorry, where were the lies?

I just asked if you needed a link. Are you telling me you are unaware of the Downing Street Memo? Or the NigerYellowcake forgery?

 

[Fry]

I just asked if you needed a link. Are you telling me you are unaware of the Downing Street Memo? Or the NigerYellowcake forgery?

Even though this is a great healthy debate.. you've still failed to answer my question.

If the majority of Americans detest Bush so much, then why did they Vote him back into office?

 

[Centurian1985]

Just to stir things up a bit more...

Previously, (page 1 of this thread) a person listed all the things that Bush lied about.  I dont know where youve been looking but even open sources have corroborated that Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs.  Just because Saddam was unsuccessful does not mean he would not have been successful in the future.  What it does indicate is that Bush firmly believed Saddam was guilty and was willing to manipulate available information to support those beliefs (as any politician would normally do!).

Further many people dont understand the burden of proof involved.  If you want to declare a person is guilty of criminal acts you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (over 95%)  that a person likely did what they are accused of.  The problem is that intelligence does not work on the reasonable doubt theory it works on the reasonable probability theory.  Thats why you dont see intelligence used in courts of law, it is only a theory unless supported by hard evidence collected by investigators.  So, when Bush went to the UN to present his case, he misused the information available, trying to present only probabilities as certainities. Thats why the investigation teams were in Iraq in the first place, trying to find positive proof that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is they were never able to find the 'smoking gun'.  For the evidence that they did find, it was all dual-use technology; which is acceptable for reasonable probability but not for investigations that need beyond a reasonable doubt. 

In the end, evidence existed, but not enough to convince the UN who were demanding beyond a reasonabe doubt before they could act.  What Bush was stupid about (and his advisors) was trying to manipulate intelligence and information so that probabilities looked like certainties.  The resulting backlask discredited ALL the information gathered so that no one was certain what was true and what had been manipulated! 

 

[couchcommander]

Previously, (page 1 of this thread) a person listed all the things that Bush lied about.  I dont know where youve been looking but even open sources have corroborated that Saddam was trying to acquire WMDs.  Just because Saddam was unsuccessful does not mean he would not have been successful in the future.  What it does indicate is that Bush firmly believed Saddam was guilty and was willing to manipulate available information to support those beliefs (as any politician would normally do!).

I'm sorry, are these the same sources that said he was trying to get Nigerian uranium? You have to understand two things here. Firstly, the difference between thinking about having weapons of mass destruction, ie such as having a project on the books with a name that was previously associated with said program, and actively seeking them, ie actually having a program to develop weapons of mass destruction. And Saddam HAD weapons of mass destruction... interestingly given to him, in part, by the US (along with France and some others).

Secondly, if you read said post, you'll notice that bush makes very very specific allegations. These were all, ALL, ALL, ALL wrong when it came to WMD and Iraq. 

To repeat what I had already posted, in summary (and these ARE Bush's words):

in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors

Wrong

He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.

Wrong

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction

Wrong

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Wrong

...so on which of these, or any on my previous post, was I wrong? Please post a reputable source that provides realtively firm evidence (ie not "recently posted documents, show that in 2002 the Iraqi dictator had a program running that had a name that was similar to one that was previously running that might have been associated with something to do with a chemical weapons program back in the 1980's"... or..."on one line of a 15,000 word document, recently uncovered, and when taken completely out of context of the document of a whole, showed that there was a proposal, that, had it actually ever been accepted, would have led to a program that might have explored, what it called "the effects of biological weapons".)

Further many people dont understand the burden of proof involved.  If you want to declare a person is guilty of criminal acts you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (over 95%)  that a person likely did what they are accused of.  The problem is that intelligence does not work on the reasonable doubt theory it works on the reasonable probability theory.  Thats why you dont see intelligence used in courts of law, it is only a theory unless supported by hard evidence collected by investigators. 

Which is why it's probably unwise to...

when Bush went to the UN to present his case, he misused the information available, trying to present only probabilities as certainities.

bingo! When he knew damn well that these were only possibilities, and evidence is emerging that he may well have known some of them to be factually inaccurate! Kind of a shitty reason to go on a rampage that has ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people (once again, there ARE good ones... but this was not one).

Thats why the investigation teams were in Iraq in the first place, trying to find positive proof that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is they were never able to find the 'smoking gun'.  For the evidence that they did find, it was all dual-use technology; which is acceptable for reasonable probability but not for investigations that need beyond a reasonable doubt. 

You mean like the kind required to produce medication that almost every country on the face of the planet has?

In the end, evidence hopeful conjecture existed, but not enough to convince the UN who were demanding beyond a reasonabe doubt before they could act.  What Bush was stupid about (and his advisors) was trying to manipulate intelligence and information so that probabilities looked like certainties.  The resulting backlask discredited ALL the information gathered so that no one was certain what was true and what had been manipulated! 

There we go.

And to end it off, my favorite, again:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Now THAT is a lie! Even by your standards!

*edit* I mean come on! The Republicans wanted to impeach Clinton because he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"... he at least had the benefit of "sexual relations" being an ambiguos term..."no doubt", IMO, is a pretty firm statement.

 

[Centurian1985]

Have to go out and do some yard - I'm not running away, I will be back to answer this!
(the problem is how to phrase my reply in a convincing manner yet still cause maximum irritation...hmmm....)  ;D

 

[Centurian1985]

Okay, if I was nasty, I would say where's your proof that he was WRONG, and make you find and quote all the sources that proves he's wrong.

However, to be fair, you challenged first, plus that would just be avoiding the issue. 

But first, your post confuses me; first you say he DID have WMDs ("given by US France and others"), then later you say he didnt have them. Can you clarify that for me?

 

[couchcommander]

During the 1980's and early 90's Saddam Hussein possessed a number of chemical and quite possibly biological weapons. He used chemical weapons against Iran, and his own civilian population. If you want a source for this, I can definitely get it, but just google "Iran-Iraq War Chemical Weapons" and you will get more sources than I can possibly provide.

However, these weapons were later destroyed in compliance with UN obligations (as was claimed by the Iraqi administration, and as is now verified by the fact we can't find any left over).

Thanks,

 

[Centurian1985]

Oh, you dont have to quote sources for me.  

To paraphrase, you mean he used to have WMDs.

Now, your going to nail me for not quoting sources because it would take me a few hours to track down all the on-line ones.  For some of this stuff, you cant find it on-line because they are unclassified but not posted on the web, or they are from magazines that you either need a precscription or dyou need an account to access.


Quote: In the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors;
"I can neither confirm nor deny".

Quote: He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country.
True: I think it was in macleans or another digest where they interiewed one of Saddams leading scientisits published about two months aafter the current war, who admitted that Saddam was pursuing CBN weapons even while they were in the country.  

Quote: Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction
Half-true: same article, went to elaborate lengths, spent a lot of money, nothing gained.  End of sentence is political rhetoric, you cant build and keep what you dont have, but you would if you had it (deliberate confusion of a fact as outlined by Hughes in the book 'Critical Thinking').

Quote
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
True, but filled with political rhetoric; unclassified news reports did say a few rusty leftover CB shells were found in isolated areas which were a threat to persons in the immediate vincinity. Note the use of the world 'lethal',meaning that a person can die, rather than 'mass-destruction', meaning many would die from the same weapon.  

Quote: Further many people dont understand the burden of proof involved.  If you want to declare a person is guilty of criminal acts you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (over 95%)  that a person likely did what they are accused of.  The problem is that intelligence does not work on the reasonable doubt theory it works on the reasonable probability theory.  Thats why you dont see intelligence used in courts of law, it is only a theory unless supported by hard evidence collected by investigators.  
Your Quote: Which is why it's probably unwise to...
Exactly: Thats why we used to get very panicky when politicians and investigators started grabbing our stuff.  Real int work develops theories from facts and tosses a theory if the facts contradict it (the good ones do anyway!); police and investigators form theories, then fit facts to the theory and discard facts that dont fit the theory (sorry boys in blue, proven fact); Politicians on the other hand scare the hell out of us; they break agreements, bury the truth if it doesnt fit their political agenda, cast aspersions, piss off allies, and just do whatever the hell they want with our stuff. they're as bad as CNN.

Quote: when Bush went to the UN to present his case, he misused the information available, trying to present only probabilities as certainities.
Your quote: bingo! When he knew damn well that these were only possibilities, and evidence is emerging that he may well have known some of them to be factually inaccurate! Kind of a shitty reason to go on a rampage that has ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people (once again, there ARE good ones... but this was not one).
We agree on something!

Quote: Thats why the investigation teams were in Iraq in the first place, trying to find positive proof that would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Problem is they were never able to find the 'smoking gun'.  For the evidence that they did find, it was all dual-use technology; which is acceptable for reasonable probability but not for investigations that need beyond a reasonable doubt.  
Your response: You mean like the kind required to produce medication that almost every country on the face of the planet has?
Confusion: What are you refering to? What medication?

Quote: In the end, evidence hopeful conjecture existed, but not enough to convince the UN who were demanding beyond a reasonabe doubt before they could act.  What Bush was stupid about (and his advisors) was trying to manipulate intelligence and information so that probabilities looked like certainties.  The resulting backlask discredited ALL the information gathered so that no one was certain what was true and what had been manipulated!  
Your quote: There we go.
We agree again.

Quote
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
Now this one you got me on.  I believe they based this on the fact that several different materials were unaccounted for, which could be explained by 'this is what happens when a war occurs'.  I would have to agree that the absence of a possible weapon from a list of items cannot be used to support an argument that they have something hidden.  Overall he might have believed this was true, but there was no evidence to support it (rather 'a lack of evidence' which can be used in other examples i.e. a missing hatchet might be the weapon that killed the grandma, but not very good in this case).  

But is it a lie? A lie is when you say something that you know to be untrue, and Bush probably thought this was true.  If Bush really thought this was true then he's only unbalanced. So there's your choice, was he lying or unbalanced? But dont worry, the truth is out there...somewhere..

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Yea same here. Poor zipperhead... I think he picked the wrong day.

Hah.  The day that hippies and socialists can give me even a moment of pause is the day I stop tossing out my knuckle dragging unsubstantiated opinions. 

Ah, of course. Before Bush, Nobody did ANYTHING about terrorism. But of course before 9/11 no one had ever experienced terrorism either.

I will take that as sarcasm.  If you are so pedantic as to suggest that 9-11 was not the most significant terrorist effort to date, then I bet you are one of the ones who thinks that the Towers coming down was from pre planted explosives and it was a controlled demolition?  Try to remember even Michael Moore admitted that he lies for the sake of entertainment.
http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2003_09_21_archive.html

Honk some people off? You mean, like triggering <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15%2C_2003_global_anti-war_protest>The Largest Protest in Human History?</a> The whole world hates Bush and the US! Osama Bin Laden is a small-time people honking off-er by this standard.

Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone has them.  Just because a bunch of kum-bay-ah peaceniks can't handle how things are going to be operating from now on and have a need to take their unshaven hemp-clad carcasses into the streets, doesn't deter from the fact that the shadows and sewers these clowns are hiding in need to be scoured. 

What?  ???

Post GW2 main attack, once they started sifting through all the papers, they started to see the little side arrangements, like the Oil for Food scam where Russia was getting nice cheap oil, and France was getting billions routed through their banks brokering the deals. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html
Gee, who was all against the war in the first place?  Oh, right.  France and Russia.  Hmmmm, seems there was another big player saying no that I'm missing,  mmm, OH YEAH, it was Germany.  Guess they must just hate conflict.  Or:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/iraqmi91.htm
Or maybe they just didn't want the US seeing the "Made with Pride in Germany" stamps on the scuds.

Not that it particularly <a href=http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/22/bush_says_iraq_pullout_up_to_future_presidents/>concerns Bush</a>.

So who should it concern?  Seems the world was pretty happy to turn their backs on Iraq for quite some time.  Do you really think they should have waited until the UN pulled their heads out of their bureaucratic asses?  Who do you think stopped them from doing the job right the first time during GW1? 

Yes, the region is SOOOOO much more stable today than it was in 2002.

Yeah, and we should have let Hitler run the show in Europe, because he was all about nice roads and tidy houses.  I think it has been covered, but the instability is because of the terrorists and resistance.  I'm betting that it isn't the Americans blowing up oil pipe lines and water plants.  The agitators over there know that if the region can be turned into a chaotic cluster f**k, then the US will fail, and after the dust settles, the thugs and tyrants will be running the show again. 

How long is this "long run"? The question is entirely academic to me, but it seems to be a rather nagging concern to many Americans who are footing the bill in blood and treasure, and of course, they are the ones who will decide how long the run will be.

I guess it is until the Iraq government can pull its crap together and run it's own country.   I think we have seen the US and Brit Secretaries of State making those sort of noises. 
Britney, I imagine you have a time limit for us in Afghanistan too?  "Jeez, all those pesky cave dwellers.  I gotta get back to Canada for the new season of 'Corner Gas'.  Screw this place".  Once committed, you take as long as it takes.  How long have we been in Cypress?  Do we need to be there?  You think they would have been better off if we had said "you guys got eight years.  Then we're off like a prom dress".  If the States sets a pull out date, the insurgents will just screw off for x-years and as soon as the last C-17 is gone, guess who will be back? 

What democracy?

The fact that the people got to vote in an election with a ballot that had more than one name on it.  The might not have been great choices, but they still got to choose.  Kind of like here. ;D

I'm having a delightful discussion on a liberal board about whether GW Bush or Andrew Jackson was the worst president of the USA, ever, but I won't burden you good folks with the details. I am interested to know how Bush was "right", and how anyone could still believe this. Of course, I could be wrong.

So go ahead, enlighten me.

No doubt you are a hero-god amongst the nay sayers. 
I met a woman a few weeks ago that was a refugee from Bagdad.  She took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over.  Her English was halting, but I asked her directly if she thought the "USA in Iraq, is that good?".  She clasped her hands as praying and she said "Every day I pray George Bush, he a great man.  He save the Iraqi people.  I love him for always".  I also asked her "but people say the USA is bad.  Are they bad?".  She said to me "tell people to live Iraq like me.  Then say USA go out".  She was a full blown George Bush lover and I had half a mind to get her info and put her in contact with Fox News (and collect a modest finder fee  )
Enlightenment comes from being open to ideas.  You don't appear to be.  Anyone can sit back and shoot down ideas, criticize others for their actions. 

So of course the next time you get your ass kicked by the popo, it's all OK, because "what about all the good things they do?"

For a guy who likes to hold everyone else to task for making dead accurate statements, you like to throw out your own jackhole bombs from time to time.  So "where is your link" to back up your statement?  Since finding tripe on broadband is apparently the only mark of an informed person.
Besides, nobody gets their ass kicked for no reason.  Just some people don't like the reason. 

Stop putting words in BS's mouth. She's certainly the most elegant poster on this site when it comes to getting a non-conservative point of view across. There's a reason why most people don't even try.

Spit or...


So fire up the way back machine, Sherman.  Lets go back to pre-Iraq invasion and you uber-brain liberals tell us what should have been done about Saddam Hussein that hadn't been done over and over the preceding years after the cease fire from GW1?  No crabbing, whining or questions with questions.  Just tell us in your opinion what should have been done.  I am certainly ready to be "enlightened".

 

[Britney Spears]

I will take that as sarcasm.  If you are so pedantic as to suggest that 9-11 was not the most significant terrorist effort to date, then I bet you are one of the ones who thinks that the Towers coming down was from pre planted explosives and it was a controlled demolition?  Try to remember even Michael Moore admitted that he lies for the sake of entertainment.

Yes, 9-11 was the most significant terrorist effort to date, and many other countries have been fighting terrorists before the US existed. What is your point? That Bush lies for the sake of entertainment?

Opinions are like a$$holes.  Everyone has them.  Just because a bunch of kum-bay-ah peaceniks can't handle how things are going to be operating from now on and have a need to take their unshaven hemp-clad carcasses into the streets, doesn't deter from the fact that the shadows and sewers these clowns are hiding in need to be scoured.

OK, whatever helps you feel bigger.

Post GW2 main attack, once they started sifting through all the papers, they started to see the little side arrangements, like the Oil for Food scam where Russia was getting nice cheap oil, and France was getting billions routed through their banks brokering the deals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52682-2004Oct21.html
Gee, who was all against the war in the first place?  Oh, right.  France and Russia.  Hmmmm, seems there was another big player saying no that I'm missing,  mmm, OH YEAH, it was Germany.  Guess they must just hate conflict.  Or:
http://cns.miis.edu/research/iraq/iraqmi91.htm
Or maybe they just didn't want the US seeing the "Made with Pride in Germany" stamps on the scuds.

How does any of this justify the invasion?

So who should it concern?  Seems the world was pretty happy to turn their backs on Iraq for quite some time.  Do you really think they should have waited until the UN pulled their heads out of their bureaucratic asses?  Who do you think stopped them from doing the job right the first time during GW1?

BUSH, of course.

Yeah, and we should have let Hitler run the show in Europe, because he was all about nice roads and tidy houses.  I think it has been covered, but the instability is because of the terrorists and resistance.  I'm betting that it isn't the Americans blowing up oil pipe lines and water plants.  The agitators over there know that if the region can be turned into a chaotic cluster f**k, then the US will fail, and after the dust settles, the thugs and tyrants will be running the show again.

So is there stability or not?

I guess it is until the Iraq government can pull its crap together and run it's own country.  I think we have seen the US and Brit Secretaries of State making those sort of noises.
Britney, I imagine you have a time limit for us in Afghanistan too?  "Jeez, all those pesky cave dwellers.  I gotta get back to Canada for the new season of 'Corner Gas'.  Screw this place".  Once committed, you take as long as it takes.  How long have we been in Cypress?  Do we need to be there?  You think they would have been better off if we had said "you guys got eight years.  Then we're off like a prom dress".  If the States sets a pull out date, the insurgents will just screw off for x-years and as soon as the last C-17 is gone, guess who will be back?

Was that what Bush told the American people in 2003? What DID he tell them? Was he right?

The fact that the people got to vote in an election with a ballot that had more than one name on it.  The might not have been great choices, but they still got to choose.  Kind of like here. Grin

I guess over in your riding the US consulate gets to dismiss MPs they don't like?

I met a woman a few weeks ago that was a refugee from Bagdad.  She took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over.  Her English was halting, but I asked her directly if she thought the "USA in Iraq, is that good?".  She clasped her hands as praying and she said "Every day I pray George Bush, he a great man.  He save the Iraqi people.  I love him for always".  I also asked her "but people say the USA is bad.  Are they bad?".  She said to me "tell people to live Iraq like me.  Then say USA go out".  She was a full blown George Bush lover and I had half a mind to get her info and put her in contact with Fox News (and collect a modest finder fee  Wink)
Enlightenment comes from being open to ideas.  You don't appear to be.  Anyone can sit back and shoot down ideas, criticize others for their actions.

I see, so accordng to you, the only way to enlightenment is to cease all critical thinking and accept everything that Dear Leader feeds us without firing a synaps? Obviously, you and I have some rather different ideas about this matter.

Oh, and needless to say, there's a whole bunch of Iraqis who don't share your friend's enthusiasm. I'm not sure if by "took the first chance to jet after the US arrived and took over" you mean she fled Baghdad in the wake of the US invasion and is now a refugee, or something else, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

For a guy who likes to hold everyone else to task for making dead accurate statements, you like to throw out your own jackhole bombs from time to time.  So "where is your link" to back up your statement?  Since finding tripe on broadband is apparently the only mark of an informed person.
Besides, nobody gets their *** kicked for no reason.  Just some people don't like the reason.

I haven't a clue as to what you are blubbering about here. Maybe you and Piper need to get together and figure out who wrote what. If you have a problem with any of my sources, say so and we'll sort it out. Maybe I'll ask you for a source when I can't find 10 sources to prove you wrong with a single search?

So fire up the way back machine, Sherman.  Lets go back to pre-Iraq invasion and you uber-brain liberals tell us what should have been done about Saddam Hussein that hadn't been done over and over the preceding years after the cease fire from GW1?  No crabbing, whining or questions with questions.  Just tell us in your opinion what should have been done.  I am certainly ready to be "enlightened".

Of course, the old "well sure we're a bunch of fskups, but let's see YOUR plan then?" argument. Yeah, actually I DO have a plan (hint: a major part of it being NOT invading Iraq),  and I'll tell you what it is, right after you admit (go start a different thread because this one is about Bush being right) that your man Bush is a lying mass murdering sack of $hit. If he wasn't you wouldn't need my plan right? Go ahead,  I'll be waiting.