Grade the Prez: Heres your chance

[Stalin]

George Bush has been a wonderful president.

He has done his best to wreck the once vibrant US economy and cripple the golden goose that funds the eternal war machine.

He has shown the world the ugly face of US state terrorism and woken US citizens to the reality of the nasty police state that they live in.

And, most of all, he has given marxists and revolutionaries great hope.

Thanks George..your a pal

 

[Bunz]

You might have a point with the Anthrax attacks. Other than that, I have not seen evidence of Clinic bombings. I've seen some stopped, but that's not what I meant. I meant terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda that happened routinely prior to Bush.

Oh OK, so the attacks have to fall under your definition, I see now.

I'm not talking about a war zone.

And the goal posts move again. It is worthy to point out that the Bush Administration routinely calls those who attack American soldiers in a warzone as terrorists.

There was no oil embargo.

I will concede this. I got my dates mixed up.

Carter was a complete idiot.

I dont think he is or was an idiot in the literal sense of the word. He was put in a very difficult situation and did what he thought was right. Hindsight might indicate something else, but either way, that could be said about any President and slanted to meet ones ideological leanings.

No he didn't cause the Soviets to invade Afghanistan. He sure didn't oppose it though.

He condemned it pretty roundly, but I am not sure what you wanted him to do in that timeframe. I think boycotting the olympics was a pointless exercise but direct military confrontation with the Soviets over the issue would not have been wise and would have lead to a much worse situation.
I applaud the efforts undertaken by the GOP in the 80s through covert support, but I will point out that when the conflict was over, all support stopped which lead directly to the Taliban gaining control over Afghanistan, and along with the Taliban, came you know who...

No he didn't directly cause the shaw of Iran to be overthrown. What he did was, while knowing that the Soviets and Chi-coms were supporting the opposition to our national ally, he refused to support the Shaw of Iran, which made his overthrowing inevitable. Then stupidly didn't think to evacuate our Embassy when he knew, or should have known, that the Shaw's end was at hand.

Having the communists supporting the opposition to our allies should have been no surprise. There are a few circumstances which I question about that, notably, why didnt the Marine guards not shoot those storming the compound. Either way, the fall of the Shah was inevitable.

He can claim anything he wants. Al Gore claims he's an environmentalist against evil oil companies. That doesn't change the fact he's got millions in Oxidental Petrol, that he arranged the sale of oil land to, as VP.

You wont find me supporting much of any Al Gore's policies, I never voted for him. Here is a little morsel for you, I voted for GWB in 2000.

Bush is not nearly as much as conservative as he's tried to say. In the same way McCain barely has a single issue anywhere that he could be considered conservative on.

The same could and should be readily said about Palin, but I am glad you concede the point. The fact of the matter is that conservatism is largely dead in DC.

France hasn't supported us on anything anywhere for ages. They are not a close ally. That said, yes they were against the war. Of course their high profit trade ties to Saddam had nothing to do with it...

They supported the US in 91, and if I am not mistaken in the Baltics in 99.

Canada did not say "no". They opted not to help only because they wanted U.N. approval. That didn't stop them from stating they clearly believed Iraq has WMDs. Canada has: helped train Iraqi police, oversight of the elections, and it's NORAD and exchange forces, did run missions with US military units during the war.

And how wise those Canadians were about getting UN approval.

So that leaves Turkey, Germany, and Saudi Arabia. Alright. Want to list the countries that not only supported but contributed troops to operations in Iraq?

United Kingdom, South Korea, Australia, Poland, Romania, Denmark, El Salvador, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Latvia, Albania, Czech Republic, Mongolia, Lithuania, Armenia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Estonia, Macedonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Fiji, Hungary, Nicaragua, Spain, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Tonga, Portugal, Singapore, Norway, Ukraine, The Netherlands, Japan, Italy, Slovakia.

Thanks for the list of that formidable force known as the Coalition of the Willing. The fact of the matter is that only the UK and Anzac forces were the only countries that contributed a considerable amount. I am not impressed by a few hundred Romanians. That force couldnt hold a square mile in Chicago.

Ok, so three countries, plus one with a conflict of interest, against all these that were for it.

I am going to assume you mean the Saudis when you discuss a conflict of interest, but I am wondering what conflict of interest you are referring to?
It is/was the Saudis and Turks who were the most probably threatened when it came to Iraq directly. They flatly said NO when it came to actually supporting the invasion. To the point where the 4th ID(if I remember correctly) was ready to go through Turkey and they had to change course and go through the Suez canal, and around the Arabian peninsula and up through Kuwait to join the fight. This objection coming from our closest military ally in the region, a member of NATO, and a country who has much more on the line than the US does, if you take away the oil equation.

That's an idiotic statement. What the heck does "hellbent... nothing could change his mind" mean?

Meaning that early on and probably before he was even elected GWB was looking for any reason to return ground troops to Iraq and to get rid of Saddam. Any justification would do, even despite contradictory evidence.
He wanted to clear up his Daddy's legacy which was criticised in some circles for not going to Baghdad in 91. This largely came from the right wing.

 

[Bunz]

It wasn't until 2 years after the invasion was completely that we gave up the search for WMDs.

Yeah, thankfully there wasnt an imminent threat of a mushroom cloud that the Bush administration ran around the country saying. It shouldnt have taken the efforts undertaken by the US to figure that much out.

Further, that was only one of the stated reasons for going.

I am aware of all the petty justifications for war as stated. The only differences between Iraq and some other countries that would meet the same criteria for invasion is that Iraq has considerable oil resources, and the perception to finish a job that was incomplete and some good ole Texas revenge for trying to kill ma daddy.

Finely, what exactly would you expect him to do?

Let the UN inspection team do thier job, continue the embargos, and maintain the military isolation that Saddam had been under for the previous decade or so. While pressing the UN to perform its function and securing meaningful allies, especially those in the region such as Turkey and the Saudis.

So if you were in charge, you'd what? Oops! No WMDs! Ok, let's put Saddam back in power, put the tyrannical Ba-aths party back in power, return the people cheering for freedom, back into rape rooms and oppression, and just quickly walk away like nothing happened? If not, then what is your brilliant plan? Stop being stupid. You can't complain about what someone else did, when you have not the slightest clue what could have been done better.

Firstly a few things Andy...these little personal attacks such as stop being stupid dont fly with me. I dont do this with you, I dont appreciate it in the slightest, do you want to have a discussion about the issue or trade personal attacks? Lets not go down this road.
Back to the subject at hand though, as I said above Saddam was militarily isolated. While he was a bad guy, I dont think he was worth the cost inflicted to this point. Id much rather have had our focus be on Afghanistan and Al-Q.

You seem to be missing the whole point. It's not necessarily "Clinton's Fault"... it's the ideologies fault. Democrats and leftists, tend to have this idea that "talking" helps. Like if we just talk, just sit and blabber about, like some annoying wind up toy, that will somehow improve things. Bush, and others like myself, believe that action sometimes is the only way. That yacking at people doesn't help.

I dont even know where to start with this one. But Ill keep it to the last sentence, and will say that while "yacking" at people doesnt help, neither does bombing and invading them. I hope you feel damn lucky you happen to have been born in a country that has great military might. Because if the tables were turned, I wonder how your tune would change.

In 1994, Clinton went on the yacking plan, to work with North Korea to not build nukes. The same as he did with Saddam, constantly trying to talk him into disarming and letting the UN inspectors to verify destruction of WMDs. Well of course the North Koreans agreed to everything no problem.

But now we know they did nothing of the sort. They signed the irrelevant paper, and went about their business building nukes. They purchased high end enrichment equipment, and started building bombs. You think 2006 was the result of one speech in 2002? Tell me you are not so ignorant to believe that only 4 years is required to go from nothing to fully functional nuclear bomb?

The whole reason Bush put Iran into his speech was explicitly because they were already building a nuclear bomb, and violating their agreement not to. We already know that the equipment needed to build the nuke, was purchased in 1997 to 2000.

Your right Andy, I didnt realize how inept Clinton was. Those damn pointless yacking sessions. Your blind partisanship is preventing you from seeing the same failures that the right has long experienced concerning the very same players for quite a period before Clinton took office.

Great. What would you have suggested we do? Invade Saudi Arabia? I thought you were against "rushing to war" and for "pursing peace"? If you are not for that, then SHUT UP! If you are, then what the heck do you think Bush should have done?

Once again Andy, telling me to shut up on a discussion forum is immature. Please stop. This is begining to erode my general respect for you.
As for the KSA, there is plenty of things we can do in concerns to the Saudis, including economic sanctions, politican pressure and stopping arms sales among others. If we want to complain about other middle eastern countries not sharing our values, than we need to look no further

You are real good at complaining about other peoples choices, but have zero suggestions yourself.

I think I have given plenty, but your inability to see the other side of the equation makes this difficult.

Absolutely.

So by this regard, we need to invade, over throw and occupy...
Iran, North Korea, and probably a dozen African countries...Id like to know whose army and money you plan to do this with?

Hey, I pile on whoever deserves it. Carter earned the rank of worst president in the past 60 years at least.

I think we will have to agree to disagree here, but I am able to do so without calling you stupid or telling you to shut up. See how this works?

Every opportunity? We have reason to believe Syria has some of Saddam's weapons. We have reason to go to Iran. We have reason to even go to Pakistan too. Heck we have reason to go to a number of places. The reason we haven't is to try and work out diplomatic solutions.

OHHHH OK, I see how this works, when it is Clinton, they are known as Yacking sessions, and when Bush does it, it is to seek diplomatic solutions...Thanks for pointing this out for me. What a joke.

Clinton's inaction for 8 years led to 9/11. Haven't YOU learned anything from history?

Yeah I have, it has been Bush who missed the lesson, Western armies are generally not seen as "liberators" in muslim countries. Nation building without universal support from our allies and the country being "built" is a massive undertaking and should only be done when critically necessary.
See the USSR in Afghanistan, France in Morocco, Britian in Rawanda and other places in Africa, and the US in Vietnam as similar situations.

Any time Clinton took action he was roundly criticised by the right as a distraction from his own domestic issues.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Big Rob, still waiting for your idea on what to do since we could not charge Bin Ladin here, since your idea of have him sent here and then shoot his would be illegal...unless you just feel that laws are just suggested ideas?

 

[Andy]

Yeah, thankfully there wasnt an imminent threat of a mushroom cloud that the Bush administration ran around the country saying. It shouldnt have taken the efforts undertaken by the US to figure that much out.

He never said it was imminent. He said they were attempting to gain nuclear weapons, not that he had them already. The only thing he said they did have was WMDs. That's not limited to nuclear weapons, or he would have simply said nuclear weapons.

He did have chemical and biological weapons. The whole point was to stop Saddam before he became an imminent threat.

I am aware of all the petty justifications for war as stated. The only differences between Iraq and some other countries that would meet the same criteria for invasion is that Iraq has considerable oil resources, and the perception to finish a job that was incomplete and some good ole Texas revenge for trying to kill ma daddy.

Oh really? How many other countries agreed to a cease-fire under the condition of disarming WMDs and have UN inspectors verify it, and then kick out the inspector while violating all other provisions? Just list em off for me Bunz.... I'll be waiting.

Let the UN inspection team do thier job, continue the embargos, and maintain the military isolation that Saddam had been under for the previous decade or so. While pressing the UN to perform its function and securing meaningful allies, especially those in the region such as Turkey and the Saudis.

Kinda hard to maintain military isolation when he could pass off WMDs to terrorist, don't you think?

Firstly a few things Andy...these little personal attacks such as stop being stupid dont fly with me. I dont do this with you, I dont appreciate it in the slightest, do you want to have a discussion about the issue or trade personal attacks? Lets not go down this road.
Back to the subject at hand though, as I said above Saddam was militarily isolated. While he was a bad guy, I dont think he was worth the cost inflicted to this point. Id much rather have had our focus be on Afghanistan and Al-Q.

You expect me to treat such a unsupportable assumption like it's legitimate? Iraq refused to comply with the U.N. up to the very moment of the invasion. Maybe a refresher is an order.

29 October 1997: Iraq bars US weapons inspectors, provoking a diplomatic crisis which is defused with a Russian-brokered compromise.

13 January 1998: Iraq blocks an inspection by a US-dominated team and accuses its leader, Scott Ritter, of spying for America.

31 October 1998: The Iraqi leadership says it has ceased all co-operation with Unscom, the United Nations Special Commission set up for weapons inspections in Iraq.

16 December 1998: The UN orders weapons inspectors out of the country after Unscom chief Richard Butler issued a report saying the Iraqis were still refusing to co-operate. US air strikes on Iraq begin hours later.

17 December 1999: Unscom is replaced by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic). Iraq rejects the resolution.

5 July 2002: UN-Iraq talks end without agreement on inspections as Baghdad seeks assurances that sanctions will be lifted.

28 September 2002: Iraq rejects a draft UN resolution proposed by the United States for with strict new rules for weapons inspections.

26 February 2003: Hans Blix states that Iraq still has not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, despite recent signs of increased cooperation. Specifically, Iraq has refused to destroy its al-Samoud 2 long range missiles. These missiles are deployed and mobile. Also, an R-400 aerial bomb was found that could possibly contain biological agents. Given this find, the UN Inspectors have requested access to the Al-Aziziyah weapons range to verify that all 155 R-400 bombs can be accounted for and proven destroyed. Blix also expresses skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed its stockpiles of anthrax and VX nerve agent in Time magazine. Blix said he found it "a bit odd" that Iraq, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," would claim to have no records of the destruction of these illegal substances. "I don't see that they have acquired any credibility," Blix said

In other words, clearly Iraq had not complied, and after 10 years, he wasn't planning to.

I dont even know where to start with this one. But Ill keep it to the last sentence, and will say that while "yacking" at people doesnt help, neither does bombing and invading them. I hope you feel damn lucky you happen to have been born in a country that has great military might. Because if the tables were turned, I wonder how your tune would change.

Of course it does. When we invaded Japan, an amazing thing happened. They stopped trying to kill us, and now we're allies.

The problem with Iraq was, we didn't defeat them. Clearly a mistake on Bush Sr. part, but nevertheless, when you don't defeat your enemies, they simply wait for a new change to defeat you. Same thing happened with South Vietnam. We didn't try and defeat them. Instead we signed a cease-fire. The result was, the moment we left under the "cease-fire", they started firing again. Ultimately thousands died because of our stupidity at talking up a "cease-fire".

Your right Andy, I didnt realize how inept Clinton was. Those damn pointless yacking sessions. Your blind partisanship is preventing you from seeing the same failures that the right has long experienced concerning the very same players for quite a period before Clinton took office.

Not true. That was just the latest example. Obviously Nixon's yack session didn't help either did it?

Once again Andy, telling me to shut up on a discussion forum is immature. Please stop. This is begining to erode my general respect for you.
As for the KSA, there is plenty of things we can do in concerns to the Saudis, including economic sanctions, politican pressure and stopping arms sales among others. If we want to complain about other middle eastern countries not sharing our values, than we need to look no further

I'm a little tired of the attack Bush, without a clue, deal. The entire left is real quick to bash Bush for anything and everything he does, while at the same time not having a clue what they would do in the same situation.

I'm also a bit tired of this inability to see the difference between a government that has violated every rule they agreed to, and one that is generally supportive.

I'm also tired of the hypocrisy of complaining about X, and then whenever someone proposes to do something about X, complaining about whatever action they propose.

Looneyleftist: Yeah, well, what about Saudi Arabia!?!
Ok, let's take out the Saudis.
Looneyleftist: What!?! You are rushing to war!! You are going for oil!!
Ok, then let's not do anything.
Looneyleftist: See!! You are not doing anything about Saudi Arabia!!

When I see that line of thinking, I call it stupid... because... it's stupid.

So by this regard, we need to invade, over throw and occupy...
Iran, North Korea, and probably a dozen African countries...Id like to know whose army and money you plan to do this with?

I don't see that North Korea agree do to a cease-fire with us, that they are now violating. I don't see that they are attempting to gain working relationships with terrorist groups. Or any of the others.

If you'd like to make the case, go for it.

OHHHH OK, I see how this works, when it is Clinton, they are known as Yacking sessions, and when Bush does it, it is to seek diplomatic solutions...Thanks for pointing this out for me. What a joke.

If that's all we intend to do, then yes they are yacking sessions, because the other nations know it's meaningless and that we'll do nothing but Yack.

Clearly Bush isn't one to simply yack at people. When negotiations break down, and the other side refuses to cooperate, like with Saddam, then a military response is required. Bush has proven he's more than a yacker.

Yeah I have, it has been Bush who missed the lesson, Western armies are generally not seen as "liberators" in muslim countries. Nation building without universal support from our allies and the country being "built" is a massive undertaking and should only be done when critically necessary.
See the USSR in Afghanistan, France in Morocco, Britian in Rawanda and other places in Africa, and the US in Vietnam as similar situations.

More supposed Iraqis apparently not happy about US lead freedom.

Any time Clinton took action he was roundly criticised by the right as a distraction from his own domestic issues.

He was criticized by everyone. I for one supported the war in Iraq back in 1998. Had Clinton actually done what he said he was going to do, instead of worrying what the poll numbers said, my view of him would be a tab better.

 

[Andy]

Oh OK, so the attacks have to fall under your definition, I see now.

Well if you thought I meant all attacks everywhere by everyone, then I apologize. Anyone thinking about it would realize that's not possible unless we control the entire planet.

And the goal posts move again. It is worthy to point out that the Bush Administration routinely calls those who attack American soldiers in a warzone as terrorists.

Um...
Terrorism is normally defined as attacking the public. Not military forces. The purpose of course is to strike "terror" into the public to push for some sort of change in policy or government.

When US forces plant anti-tank mines or personnel mines, it's not to try and terrorize the public, but to stop the enemy. Similarly, I don't consider mines planted to stop our military to be "terrorism". IF you disagree, then we have no common ground to discuss it from.

I dont think he is or was an idiot in the literal sense of the word. He was put in a very difficult situation and did what he thought was right. Hindsight might indicate something else, but either way, that could be said about any President and slanted to meet ones ideological leanings.

A very difficult situation? Let's think this through. Less than 5 years prior, price caps caused gasoline shortages nation wide. Difficult choice one, install price controls, or don't install price controls? Hmm.... let's see... Install price controls. Shocking, more shortages nation wide.

The soviets are backing Ayatollah Khomeini, who is attempting to incite a revolution against the Shah of Iran, who is pro-America. What do you do? Support an ally of the US, or let him be replaced by an anti-america, death to the great satan, radical islamist? Allow him to be overthrown, which years later leads to a nuclear Iran crisis.

You have now decided to not help a friendly ally to the US, and instead know that since the Ayatollah Khomeini is being supported by a world super-power, the Soviets, that it is nearly impossible for the Shah to survive. Knowing this, do you realize the anti-American hatred of the revolution, might make it necessary to withdraw all Americans from Iran, or mess around with price controls on oil, and hope for the best in Iran. You mess with price controls and hope for the best.

After brilliantly leaving Americans in Iran, after not supporting a favorable Shah, who was being overthrown by our enemies the Soviets, 60 some Americans were taken hostage and paraded through the streets of Iran blindfolded. Do you take the reigns off of the American military, and let them determine the best possible way to get the hostages, while trying to negotiate with Ayatollah Khomeini, or do you authorize an ill-advised gotta get it down now so I can maybe be re-ellected attempt that results in tons of pristine top notch military hardware being left gassed up and read to use for the new anti-american government?

I'm not seeing these hugely difficult choices. I'm seeing stupid choices by an incompetent idiot of a president.

Having the communists supporting the opposition to our allies should have been no surprise. There are a few circumstances which I question about that, notably, why didnt the Marine guards not shoot those storming the compound. Either way, the fall of the Shah was inevitable.

I disagree. If we had supported our ally, he might have held off those wackos. That said, even if he did fall, at least it wouldn't have been our fault. We could say we did our part to help an ally. Thanks to Carter, we can not.

The same could and should be readily said about Palin, but I am glad you concede the point. The fact of the matter is that conservatism is largely dead in DC.

Not so. There were a couple dozen in the house that proposed an alternative plan to help banks that didn't include public funding, or bailouts. It might not be the majority, but there is some conservatism left. As long as it exists, it isn't defeated.

They supported the US in 91, and if I am not mistaken in the Baltics in 99.

2 out of hundreds of issues.

And how wise those Canadians were about getting UN approval.

Yeah, how brilliant. If only everyone would wait for the inept UN that we pay for, to make everything right. Reminds me of Mogudishu where the UN sat back watching militia shoot civilians and burn down villages.

Thanks for the list of that formidable force known as the Coalition of the Willing. The fact of the matter is that only the UK and Anzac forces were the only countries that contributed a considerable amount. I am not impressed by a few hundred Romanians. That force couldnt hold a square mile in Chicago.

Yeah, neither can the french. The fact is, they supported the action. And by the way, Romania sent one thousand troops. Not exactly a few hundred. Further, South Korea sent 2,300 troops, more than Australia. Poland also sent a thousand.

I am going to assume you mean the Saudis when you discuss a conflict of interest, but I am wondering what conflict of interest you are referring to?

France had a vast number of business contracts with Saddam's Iraq. Iraq has purchased many weapons from France, as well as France being the largest contributor to the Oil-for-food program the UN setup. France was also a center piece to the Oil-for-Food scandal involving Iraq.

The French economic ties to Saddam run so deep, that Saddam threatened to blackmail France after they sided against him during the Kuwait war. However it makes perfect sense, economically. Kuwait had big contracts with France as well. So kicking Saddam out was politically acceptable, and economically supportable.

But the second war, which would remove Saddam's government, would be an economic negative, and also might turn up evidence of Frances involvement.

Meaning that early on and probably before he was even elected GWB was looking for any reason to return ground troops to Iraq and to get rid of Saddam. Any justification would do, even despite contradictory evidence.
He wanted to clear up his Daddy's legacy which was criticised in some circles for not going to Baghdad in 91. This largely came from the right wing.

There wasn't any evidence to the contrary.

 

[Sihouette]

What is chrisitain depends on ones point of view. ~NoObama back a few pages

Ahhh, that is where you are dead wrong. What is christian depends on Jesus' point of view...and no other man for any reason whatsoever.

Dawk, you're a crackup.

"I'd give him a Z but only because that is where the alphabet stops".

My sentiments exactly. Upon my vote the tally says 56% of us gave him an "F". Majority rules...

 

[Dr.Who]

I gave him a D.

He rushed into the war too rapidly. He may have been right but he was rash.

He failed to hold to conservative values.

He expanded the role and powers and expense of government.

He failed to counter the statements of the opposition party and allowed them to paint a picture of him that was false and came to be accepted by most Americans regardless of inaccuracies in it.

He was a poor public speaker.

I give congress and F.

And based on what I wrote above I expect PE Obama to get an F on items similar to the first three I listed. He will likely get a B on the fourth. And since the fourth is the one that drives the responses of so many he will fare better on polls like this one.

 

[Bunz]

He never said it was imminent. He said they were attempting to gain nuclear weapons, not that he had them already. The only thing he said they did have was WMDs. That's not limited to nuclear weapons, or he would have simply said nuclear weapons.
He did have chemical and biological weapons. The whole point was to stop Saddam before he became an imminent threat.

Well Condi Rice said he could have been as little as 6 months away, back in 2002. Also the Bush Administration did everything they could to tie Saddam to 9-11. Both of which turned out to be bunk.

Oh really? How many other countries agreed to a cease-fire under the condition of disarming WMDs and have UN inspectors verify it, and then kick out the inspector while violating all other provisions? Just list em off for me Bunz.... I'll be waiting.

I would say that NKorea meets the criteria you outline, to the point where they have actually detonated a nuclear device.

You expect me to treat such a unsupportable assumption like it's legitimate? Iraq refused to comply with the U.N. up to the very moment of the invasion.
In other words, clearly Iraq had not complied, and after 10 years, he wasn't planning to.

I find it kind of funny that you want to throw around a listing of violated UN sanctions all the while supporting we act outside of the authority of the UN.
Either we respect the process involved with getting UN support, or we act unilaterally as we did. But we cannot then suggest those sanctions are the main focus. If Bush would have been straight forward with the American people about his intentions and reasoning for war in Iraq I would have a hell of a lot more respect for the man.

Of course it does. When we invaded Japan, an amazing thing happened. They stopped trying to kill us, and now we're allies.

HUH? Except for Okinawa we didnt invade Japan, we occupied them after they surrendered...after we nuked them, twice. Your argument here would be more credible if you said Germany instead of Japan. But either way, the assumption that the Iraqis would just roll over in the fact of overwhelming military force and allow occupation without resistance is naive at best.

The problem with Iraq was, we didn't defeat them. Clearly a mistake on Bush Sr. part, but nevertheless, when you don't defeat your enemies, they simply wait for a new change to defeat you. Same thing happened with South Vietnam. We didn't try and defeat them. Instead we signed a cease-fire. The result was, the moment we left under the "cease-fire", they started firing again. Ultimately thousands died because of our stupidity at talking up a "cease-fire".

We might have some common ground when it comes to not "defeating" them back in 91, but that was a result of having people in charge who were actually involved in previous wars and had learned the hard fought lessons from them. We had accomplished our mission by liberating Kuwait. Rolling to Baghdad might have been the right thing then. We had the forces and international support to possibly do it.
The US trying to go in on the cheap without support of two critical in region allies was simply DUMB on Baby Bush's part. We are paying the price nearly 6 years later as a result.

I'm a little tired of the attack Bush, without a clue, deal. The entire left is real quick to bash Bush for anything and everything he does, while at the same time not having a clue what they would do in the same situation.

Considering I voted for him in 2000, I give him credit where it is due. Making sure the Brady Bill sunsetted was awesome on his part.

I'm also a bit tired of this inability to see the difference between a government that has violated every rule they agreed to, and one that is generally supportive.

So it doesnt matter that the Saudis share virtually zero of our social values in terms of democracy, freedom of speech, religion, gender equality. Whose citizens sometimes are as declared by Bush the greatest threat to America and her allies, who are known to have supported terror against Israel, but it doesnt matter because they are "supportive"? Because they have a strategic resource we desparately need? Because if it wasnt for that oil, we wouldnt give 2 cents about the Sauds.

I don't see that North Korea agree do to a cease-fire with us, that they are now violating. I don't see that they are attempting to gain working relationships with terrorist groups. Or any of the others.
If you'd like to make the case, go for it.

We have a cease fire with NKorea dating back to 1953. They are signers of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have backed out. As for thier work with terrorist organizations? I cant speak to that. But by your justifications for war with Iraq, the same could be said for invasion, occuptation and overthrow of the regime there, why dont you think we did that?

Clearly Bush isn't one to simply yack at people. When negotiations break down, and the other side refuses to cooperate, like with Saddam, then a military response is required. Bush has proven he's more than a yacker.

Your right, Bush isnt a yacker, he is a bully where he can be. What has he done about Iran, Pakistan, NKorea..."yacked"

More supposed Iraqis apparently not happy about US lead freedom.

Andy, you dont want to go down the road of trading a handful of pictures to make your point about how the average Iraqi feels concerning US"liberation"
I dont feel like posting graphic pictures of hurt and dead Americans and Iraqis who support Americans. I also dont want to post pictures of how happy the NKoreans, Nazi's, Iraqis were in the face of thier great leader. Point being, one can post pictures and skew thier interpretation in many different ways. Doing so, does not convince the person you are debating.

 

[Bunz]

Um...
Terrorism is normally defined as attacking the public. Not military forces. The purpose of course is to strike "terror" into the public to push for some sort of change in policy or government.
When US forces plant anti-tank mines or personnel mines, it's not to try and terrorize the public, but to stop the enemy. Similarly, I don't consider mines planted to stop our military to be "terrorism". IF you disagree, then we have no common ground to discuss it from.

OK, Im gonna set aside the definition concerning military personnel, but there is no shortage of evidence of terrorist attacks directed towards Iraqi people as by your definition, mostly in an effort to shape government.

The soviets are backing Ayatollah Khomeini, who is attempting to incite a revolution against the Shah of Iran, who is pro-America. What do you do? Support an ally of the US, or let him be replaced by an anti-america, death to the great satan, radical islamist? Allow him to be overthrown, which years later leads to a nuclear Iran crisis.
You have now decided to not help a friendly ally to the US, and instead know that since the Ayatollah Khomeini is being supported by a world super-power, the Soviets, that it is nearly impossible for the Shah to survive. Knowing this, do you realize the anti-American hatred of the revolution, might make it necessary to withdraw all Americans from Iran, or mess around with price controls on oil, and hope for the best in Iran.

IIRC the Shah wasnt even in coutry at the time, getting treatment in America for cancer which allowed the entire situation to deteriorate. Either way, my point in my previous post was to try and understand why the Marine guard didnt open fire when the embassy was stormed. (Now I am one who generally avoids second guessing those in a potential gunfight, because I am not in thier shoes, I havent been able to find much about those there and why they didnt open fire, but in hindsight they would have been justified in shooting every person who attacked the embassy)

Not so. There were a couple dozen in the house that proposed an alternative plan to help banks that didn't include public funding, or bailouts. It might not be the majority, but there is some conservatism left. As long as it exists, it isn't defeated.

A couple dozen law makers in the house? At most 30 out of a legislative body that contains 435... Conservatism is as dead as Reagan.
Your last sentence brings hope to me though. I am a Green Bay Packers fan, even after a tough season, I know they still exist but are not defeated.

Yeah, how brilliant. If only everyone would wait for the inept UN that we pay for, to make everything right. Reminds me of Mogudishu where the UN sat back watching militia shoot civilians and burn down villages.

Id like to know what what you think would have been the more appropriate answer towards the situation in various places in Africa in particular.

Yeah, neither can the french. The fact is, they supported the action. And by the way, Romania sent one thousand troops. Not exactly a few hundred. Further, South Korea sent 2,300 troops, more than Australia. Poland also sent a thousand.
France had a vast number of business contracts with Saddam's Iraq. Iraq has purchased many weapons from France, as well as France being the largest contributor to the Oil-for-food program the UN setup. France was also a center piece to the Oil-for-Food scandal involving Iraq.
The French economic ties to Saddam run so deep, that Saddam threatened to blackmail France after they sided against him during the Kuwait war. However it makes perfect sense, economically. Kuwait had big contracts with France as well. So kicking Saddam out was politically acceptable, and economically supportable.
But the second war, which would remove Saddam's government, would be an economic negative, and also might turn up evidence of Frances involvement.

Andy, I cant find believe I find myself even attempting to defend France. My contempt for the French is similar to that of the Saudis, but for different reasons.

In closing for now, I find that the knowledge that the French had about Iraq was much more valuable being used to our gain, instead of simply ignoring and downplaying thier importance in the situation. I know the French were dirty in the whole thing before hand, but I think they knew more than we did, and we overlooked what could be gained by them.

 

[BigRob]

Big Rob, still waiting for your idea on what to do since we could not charge Bin Ladin here, since your idea of have him sent here and then shoot his would be illegal...unless you just feel that laws are just suggested ideas?

My "idea" never involved bringing him to US soil where he falls under jurisdiction of the US courts.

Take him into custody and send send him to a place like GITMO.

 

[Andy]

OK, Im gonna set aside the definition concerning military personnel, but there is no shortage of evidence of terrorist attacks directed towards Iraqi people as by your definition, mostly in an effort to shape government.

I can agree with that.

IIRC the Shah wasnt even in coutry at the time, getting treatment in America for cancer which allowed the entire situation to deteriorate. Either way, my point in my previous post was to try and understand why the Marine guard didnt open fire when the embassy was stormed. (Now I am one who generally avoids second guessing those in a potential gunfight, because I am not in thier shoes, I havent been able to find much about those there and why they didnt open fire, but in hindsight they would have been justified in shooting every person who attacked the embassy)

I have not heard this. It was my understanding the exit to America was more of an excuse to leave before being overthrown.

I do not know about the Marine guard. It's possible Carter had implemented a rules of engagement that hindered their response.

A couple dozen law makers in the house? At most 30 out of a legislative body that contains 435... Conservatism is as dead as Reagan.
Your last sentence brings hope to me though. I am a Green Bay Packers fan, even after a tough season, I know they still exist but are not defeated.

I disagree but hey, whatever. The left always tries to portray the right as being dead. Nevertheless every election, conservatives are under attack everywhere they run.

Id like to know what what you think would have been the more appropriate answer towards the situation in various places in Africa in particular.

To what specifically? There is no unversal preset answer. So which specific situation do you wish to know about, and I'll give you my opinion on it.

In closing for now, I find that the knowledge that the French had about Iraq was much more valuable being used to our gain, instead of simply ignoring and downplaying thier importance in the situation. I know the French were dirty in the whole thing before hand, but I think they knew more than we did, and we overlooked what could be gained by them.

Well what information do you think they would have given us? Most of the information they had, would be coupled with information about their own illegal sale of weapons, and the UN Oil-for-Food scandal. You really think France would hand over information that would incriminate themselves? That's not going to happen.

 

[Sihouette]

Sierra Leone Andy. What do you think of the situation in Sierra Leone?

The atrocities, the rapes, the maimings, amputations, torture and murder.

Why aren't we there? Bunz knows why. He just told you in reference to the Saudis. We won't side against anyone who gives us a straw into some nice oil. We don't care to side with anyone who cannot.

And we're supposed to be the Great Moral Nation. No wonder they call us "the infidels". Didn't the Bible even refer to the appearance of the Antichrist as "cloaked in white robes...of overt nobel purpose..fooling everyone.."?

 

[Dr.Who]

Sierra Leone Andy. What do you think of the situation in Sierra Leone?

The atrocities, the rapes, the maimings, amputations, torture and murder.

Why aren't we there? Bunz knows why. He just told you in reference to the Saudis. We won't side against anyone who gives us a straw into some nice oil. We don't care to side with anyone who cannot.

And we're supposed to be the Great Moral Nation. No wonder they call us "the infidels". Didn't the Bible even refer to the appearance of the Antichrist as "cloaked in white robes...of overt nobel purpose..fooling everyone.."?

You don't do much for your own credibility when you mix truth with untruth. they do call us infidels but not because we side with people for this reason or that. They don't care about the reasons we side with people. They would call us infidels regardless of that. The fact of the matter is short of completely abandoning who we are and becoming Muslims there is nothing we can do to not be called infidels.

Next, if you were to step back I am sure you would find that the US picks allies for a variety of reason some of them ignoble but some of them noble.

When you take every single opportunity possible to slam the US, do it with bias, never find good in the US, and claim the moral high ground yourself you hurt a number of things. You hurt your own cred. And you give people in foreign countries reasons to hate us that might not exist if you were not saying them. Try talkin up the US once in a while for what it does right and see if foreign opinion doesn't change.

On top of that why do I imagine that after January 20th not much will change in terms of foreign policy but your rhetoric will change a lot.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

My "idea" never involved bringing him to US soil where he falls under jurisdiction of the US courts.

Take him into custody and send send him to a place like GITMO.

well first we don't have him, they where to get him ( it was debatable if they even could get him if they wanted anyway) and 2nd Gitmo is illegal and again your just skirting the law. The US has no legal backing to be just taking people from outside the US, and doing what ever they want with no legal limits.