General Chat / Bush after the Iraq war

See what happens when I always poke my head into a subject that I should just leave alone?

People end up hating me and my mouth [fingers] begin doing the talking instead of my head.

But, Really, if a person put his views on the matter and it wasn't Liberal, then he'd get his head bit off by you guys.

Oh well, politics ain't my thang, dawg.

No hard feelings, 'Trix.

*poof*

You're such an idiot, it's unbelieveable.

thanks for the comment

But, Really, if a person put his views on the matter and it wasn't Liberal, then he'd get his head bit off by you guys.

I don't really think that's true. You just haven't really said why you support Bush, other than the fact that it was his call, he did it, and because we live in the country we should just accept it and not really discuss what happened, why it happened, and the negative effects of it. You stated your opinion, but what makes you think the way you do? Why was Bush justified in ordering the war?

After 13 years of sanctions, and no political pressure on Clinton whatsoever when he was Governer of Texas.

Thank you for that gracious and insightful comment, QOTSA.

I'll forever remember that.

You are not one to discuss insight, pal.
Unless you're getting insight from people on what music to listen to because you can't make up your own fucking mind.

That one hurt real bad.

to answer an earlier question<- why was saddam not taken out earlier<- answer comes in two parts...firstly a presidential mandate forbids us from completing political assasinations(done after jfk tried to have Fidel killed).
Second<- in the first gulf war, we were poised to take baghdad..but bush sr. let the un dictate to us, and he pulled back...personally i feel he should have been taken out then...but the un screwed up once again....
As part of the agreement he agreed to get rid of all his weapons (now defined as wmds), and let inspectors in. He allowed for awhile, and then kicked them out. 19 un sanctions later, we had the iraq war..

And guys does calling pym an idiot serve any real purpose? If your debating the Iraq war, dont call pym an idiot(though i will agree, he sometimes is.) instead focus on telling him why he is wrong, and back it up. That is what we call debating. Its the same thing with many who bash bush, they simply call him idiotic, and never actually discuss the issues. So if were gonna debate, lets debate. If not i beleive there is a freespeak forum where you can bash pym all you want.

That's the thing though. You probably believe that Bush should have ignored the UN, going ahead and taking over Iraq in the first place. Then we'd take over the nation, etc...

The thing is, had he ignored the UN, he would have been sending a message: International diplomacy doesn't matter. If you don't like what the international body, representing the other nations of the world, just ignore them.

There's a reason we don't assassinate leaders, even if they deserve to be tied to a spit and castrated in segments. We should NOT stoop that low to their level.

If we had gone in to overthrow Saddam, at least we should have said that from the beginning rather than claiming false pretense and using a reason that people would more easily embrace. And even if they had said that was reason, I'm not sure I would have supported the U.S. going in unilaterally and overthrowing a leader.


In a slightly different topic, I found this disheartening but interesting:
http://cnn.netscape....=20040102MAX102

And, BTW, Meretrix, lmfao you can't tell me I'm wrong.
If someone doesn't like you guys and wants you guys oppressed, you can't tell me you'd support him and like him.

Pym, you like many feeble minded people seems to believe, as is evidenced by your quote, that gay and lesbian people have some kind of "agenda". Oddly enough the Christian Wrong also believes this very same thing, and has thus set about on its' own "agenda" if you will, to deny gay and lesbian TAXPAYING people the ONLY thing that anyone desires....EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW!!! I will forgive you merely because you are young, and do not earn money (enough to count for having any sort of fiscal opinion anyway), whereas people like myself, be they lesbian, gay, or bisexual are paying an inordinate amount of taxes for rights that we do not have. The financial scales are so completely aschew, that I, nor any other thinking person, should never support fiscal discrimination by ANYONE, demoncrat, or republicanazi.

However, you are correct in thinking that I do not support Bush in any way, shape or form. He has disgraced this country with his abysmal foreign policy (HELLO KYOTO PROTOCAL!!!) He has about faced on his "compassionate conservatism", and he may very well be, judging by his missuse of the English language, one of the stupidest people on the planet!. IT'S PRONOUNCED NUCLEAR, not NUCULEAR!!!!! Fucking MORON! Oh well, thi country is a sad testament to the age old adage, the blind leading the blind.......Pathetic.Oh yeah, he's also a biggot. 'Nuff said.

The books have been ready and the library is closed.

To be fair, Trix, if you were pointing out failures in foreign policy, Kyoto Protocol isn't something most Americans will care about anyway. Actually, if you look at the results of his moves, foreign policy has been his strongest point, from the "liberation" of Afghanistan and Iraq to the concessions by Libya and admissions from North Korea to improved economic relations with China.

It's his domestic front that's always suffered, but now that the economy is supposedly recovering (it's a jobless recovery, though, which in effect means it's a legless recovery--it only looks like the economy's improving but there's not much tangible evidence to support that), people will ignore that. Remember, most of the American public are ignorant.

And don't fall into the trap of insulting his comedic and often confused speech. It makes you look like you have no other basis to criticize him, and thus you revert to simple insults.

Just a few tips on arguing a point.

Yes, Clinton screwed around on his wife and lied about it. To everyone. However, he DID NOT lead a country, imperialistically, unilaterally, and against the will of least half the people of this country, into an unprovoked war

Hello......? (doing my Raven impression)

Clinton DID infact lead troops into wars and conflicts. Here are a few:

Operation Northern Watch. Yes, it was started by Bush 1, but continued by Clinton to operate the no-fly zones in Iraq.

Operation Vigilant Warrior 1994. Thousands of troops were sent in to stop another Iraq invasion of Kuwait.

1997, Clinton expanded the no-fly zone to cover 90% of Iraq.

Somalia 1992 - 1994. Yes, this was a relief effort, but it turned into war with the rebels. (See Blackhawk Down). The U.S. lost 18 personnel trying to catch members of a clan. If it was Bush 2 trying to provide relief effort to Somalia, liberlas would rant about it being 'unjustified.'

Haiti 1994. U.S. troops were sent in to evade, but eventually, it was turned into a peacekeeping mission when the Haitian president backed down.

Sarajevo and Bosnia-Herzegovina 1992 - 1996. Even though we were trying to provide relief supplies, we were brought into the former Yugoslavia's war. We finally pull out of there after 3 1/2 years.

Operation Deny Flight - Bosnia 1993 - 1995. Bosnian Serbs shot down a patrolling F-16 and take 370 UN soldiers hostage. Operation Deliberate Force sent in air strikes against targets in Sarajevo.

Kosovo 1999 - Operation Allied Force. 78 days and over 38,000 sorties of air strikes over Serbia.

AND THE BIG ONE....... CLINTON INVADED IRAQ IN 1998 - 1999. Here are direct quotes from Clinton himself........

Bill Clinton took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

"Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. ... Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. ... Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection."

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

"The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so." http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=31143

Sound familiar?

Also, go check out www.famousidiot.com if you want to hear stupid Hollywood liberals talking out of their asses.

That isn't invasion, that is airstrikes against some military compost that was build too far out, or some grouped Scuds that were getting too close to minority groups.
the air cover i've always thought was idiotic, you take control over another nations sky and deny them their own security. while you bomb military targets that often or not too close to civilian area BECAUSE if they were parked in a military base in the desert you'd a probably crusie missle'd it up.

you denied Iraq, despite Saddam being bad, its own national security and ability to defend itself.

Completely different things Mike. And I'll kindly ask you NOT to infer that I am a liberal. Far fucking from it!!!

As I said in my post, there is no changing anyone's mind about this issue. It has torn this country in half. I predict it will only get worse. I'm reminded of the entire Vietnam debacle. This bears striking resemblance to that, in terms of the divided reactions in the general public.

You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. And honestly, since NEITHER of us have ALL of the facts, we'll just have to wait and see how this whole big mess plays out.

One can argue that Bush's foreign policy has been a strong point, but only on a level of aggression. If you want to analyze his foreign policy let's look how he has treated one of his two closest neighbours and perennial ally, Canada. For some strange reason Bush has a hate on for Canada. Maybe it's because we haven't been kissing his ass enough, maybe it's the fact that a Canadian comedian exposed him for not knowing the name of Canada's Prime Minister before your election, or maybe it is some deep seeded resentment of the Blue Jays kicking his Ranger's asses way back when. Who knows why, but his foreign policy towards Canada has been abysmal. It's almost as if he's trying to strongarm future Canadian politicians into blindly following the U.S. in all future foreign policy. 'If your not with us your against us'. That's good diplomacy. Anyone who doesn't support our non-UN supported actions in the middle-east is our enemy. WTF is that? Yes, the U.S. is the most powerful nation in the world, but is it right for your leader to act like Tony Soprano in getting what he wants? In my opinion, Bush is a moron. Mike, you're right in saying the Clinton was involved in many foreign military actions and some of those are also very questionable in nature, but I don't believe he ever tried to coerce the rest of the world into getting involved with what were often actions solely in the interest of the U.S. That to me is the big difference. Bush's attitude towards the rest of the world seems to be that we are all lesser beings because we are not American. This is the attitude that pisses the world community off.

Dont forget bombing a medicine factory to cover up monicagate mike....

Or heres another one...clinton was given multiple oppurtunities to have osama expedited to the us to stand trial....and guess what...he didnt take him...

This economy was on the decline in Clinton's last year of office..Bush just stepped into the hotbed that Clinton created....Clinton was surviving of the Bush Sr.(and reagan economies).
No what pisses the world community off Toon is that america is powerful, and they cant control it like they could under Slick Willy...

My money is on toon.

Minnime, America is powerful, true. That does NOT give it the right to do whatever it pleases.

Does the third reich ring a bell??

Another powerful empire (and I use that word because that is the way this country is behaving at the moment) that abused power for its' own selfish motives. What sickens me is the stupid fools following along blindly, not questioning any of it. Then again, what can you expect from a "civilized country" where 38% of adults are illiterate?

Dont forget bombing a medicine factory to cover up monicagate mike....

Or heres another one...clinton was given multiple oppurtunities to have osama expedited to the us to stand trial....and guess what...he didnt take him...

This economy was on the decline in Clinton's last year of office..Bush just stepped into the hotbed that Clinton created....Clinton was surviving of the Bush Sr.(and reagan economies).
No what pisses the world community off Toon is that america is powerful, and they cant control it like they could under Slick Willy...

See, the difference between Mike and you is that Mike has a thought out position (tho I don't agree with it, I respect his right to have it and he is not just spouting off whatever crap he hears). You on the other hand are just offering inflamatory crap to this discussion and it would appear from your choice of words that you really have no idea what you are talking about, but are likely just repeating what you're hearing around the dinner table.

Oh yeah, Clinton bombing factories to deflect Monicagate is kind of like you dissin' Clinton to deflect this topic away from Bush. As far as I know this discussion wasn't about Clinton being better than Bush, it was about what a moron Bush is.

And one last thing...saying Clinton rode Reaganomics for an 8 year term, 12 years after Reagan's last stint as Pres is also an idiotic statement. Economics is really for the most park not under the control of government, but more of a fluctuating world phenomenon. I always find it amusing that leaders get credit for economic upswings or get blamed for downturns. It's pretty much a rollercoaster and will have fluctuations no matter whose in charge.

toon, I have to go to school with him. Let's just say in current events class, during a quiz, if the teacher asks about a democrat, it will be followed by a loud outburst of "socialist idiot" or something similar.

This economy was on the decline in Clinton's last year of office..Bush just stepped into the hotbed that Clinton created....Clinton was surviving of the Bush Sr.(and reagan economies).

That's actually kind of true though, except Clinton was riding on the coattails of policies initiated by Bush Sr., not Reagan, and he did nothing for himself. Thus, by the end of his term, the economy was indeed slowing down.

Yes, economy is a cycle, but the government CAN influence it.