The Bush Thread II

[roach]

Originally Posted by Marx

I supported the invasion into Afghanistan. The ones who carried out those attacks had to be dealt with. If we had not invaded, what kind of a message would that have sent to the rest of the world and to our own country? What would have happened had we not fought back after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but the idea of the US just rebuilding the towers and letting those who attacked us go free makes me a bit sick to my stomach.

we would have opened ourselves to more attacks

[Marx]

UPDATE: GLAMOUR MAGAZINE TO HONOR LAURA BUSH AND DAUGHTERS
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/...daughters.html

[Marx]

UPDATE: POPULAR GEORGE W. BUSH IMPERSONATOR HAS DIED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...or-dies-at-48/

[Schlosser85]

I'm sure conspiracy theorists are hard at work as we speak.

[Marx]

...and he was only 48!

[Schlosser85]

He was taken out.

[Matt Mortem]

Originally Posted by Marx

UPDATE: POPULAR GEORGE W. BUSH IMPERSONATOR HAS DIED
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...or-dies-at-48/

That guy was awesome. What a loss

[Venom75]

Originally Posted by Marx

I supported the invasion into Afghanistan. The ones who carried out those attacks had to be dealt with. If we had not invaded, what kind of a message would that have sent to the rest of the world and to our own country? What would have happened had we not fought back after the attack on Pearl Harbor?

I know you're playing devil's advocate, but the idea of the US just rebuilding the towers and letting those who attacked us go free makes me a bit sick to my stomach.

I fully agree with this. People seem to forget so easily anymore. The images of the towers and the pentagon on fire and the horrible fate of those on the planes and in the buildings,the poor people who either leaped or fell to their deaths from the Twin Towers,the last calls to loved ones from the doomed planes,the body parts found after the collapse in NY;etc,etc....After what was done on 9/11 we NEEDED to go after these people.

[8wid]

^The operation to hunt down and defeat Al-Queda has mostly been a huge blunder in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US has been in both countries way too long to justify a full scale military invasion. No more than 35,000 troops should have been looking for Osama Bin Laden and his subordinates in Afghanistan. The CIA, Interpol, and Pakistani authorities could have helped take care of this and my bet is it would have taken just as long to find Bin Laden. Over a hundred thousand troops should not been enacting a policy of regime change and nation building in a country already resentful towards military occupation from the Soviets, British Empire, and others before them. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed during the fighting for no reason accept by accident. The response to Pearl Harbor needed a declaration of war to take out a continent spanning Empire that had occupied a certain country, Osama Bin Laden and his terror organization were a bunch of thugs and criminals without a country to fall behind, not worth the full scale and overelongated war that has been fought and cost so many billions of dollars to finish. Bin Laden needed to be killed, but the US strategy should have also been more wisely pulled off. If Bush had reinforced the troops at Tora Bora, Bin Laden would have likely been captured or killed. And don't even get me started on the mistep of sending US forces to invade Iraq for bullox reasons that distracted from the real mission in the War on Terror. Bush is probably the dumbest war time President in American history.

[Marx]

UPDATE: W BUSH PORTRAIT UNVEILED AT WHITE HOUSE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

[Ocramed]

Originally Posted by roach

we would have opened ourselves to more attacks

Kind of like those previous Al-Qaeda attacks on: * The World Trade Center in 1993 * Bombing the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 * The bombing of the USS Cole, while it was refueling in Yemen in 2000 So, yeah, we did open ourselves for more attacks BEFORE 9/11, even though the Clinton Administration did much for the Muslims in Bosnia during the Yugoslavian Civil War while not wanting to escalate tensions in the Muslim world. Idiot.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Marx

UPDATE: W BUSH PORTRAIT UNVEILED AT WHITE HOUSE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

It is a weird portrait, almost like he is snickering or couldn't keep a straight face as it was painted.

[TheBat812]

Originally Posted by Matt

It is a weird portrait, almost like he is snickering or couldn't keep a straight face as it was painted.

lol, that's just his face. Look at picture 7 vs picture 8 in the slideshows.

[roach]

Originally Posted by Ocramed

Kind of like those previous Al-Qaeda attacks on: * The World Trade Center in 1993 * Bombing the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 * The bombing of the USS Cole, while it was refueling in Yemen in 2000 So, yeah, we did open ourselves for more attacks BEFORE 9/11, even though the Clinton Administration did much for the Muslims in Bosnia during the Yugoslavian Civil War while not wanting to escalate tensions in the Muslim world. Idiot.

the point I was making is if we didn't do anything after 9/11 we would have opened ourselves up to more attacks

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by roach

the point I was making is if we didn't do anything after 9/11 we would have opened ourselves up to more attacks

So taking out one of the enemies(Saddam) of the guy who is responsible for 9-11 was a good idea? Not saying Saddam is a good guy but that kind of logic seems counter productive(it's like hey we will show you will will take out a thorn in your side and give you easier leeway into Iraq).

[babbage]

Originally Posted by Marx

UPDATE: W BUSH PORTRAIT UNVEILED AT WHITE HOUSE
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/31/politi...html?hpt=hp_c1

I'd forgotten how much Laura Bush always looks like a Stepford Wife with her thousand-yard-stare and rictus grin.

[roach]

Originally Posted by SV Fan

So taking out one of the enemies(Saddam) of the guy who is responsible for 9-11 was a good idea? Not saying Saddam is a good guy but that kind of logic seems counter productive(it's like hey we will show you will will take out a thorn in your side and give you easier leeway into Iraq).

we were talking about Afghanistan

[SV Fan]

Originally Posted by roach

we were talking about Afghanistan

Well Bush waged 2 wars, one I agree with and the other I don't.

[Kelly]

I don't agree with either of them....

We did not need to send in full forces to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden or to overthrow the Taliban. Conflicts since then have shown us this.......but in reference to Afghanistan, it is a tribal country and any attempt at unifying it futile...and apparently the people making the decisions forgot history.

As far as Iraq, that was finishing what his father did....instead Bush II should have taken the lead of his father, and when going to war to set a specific mandate to meet, and once its met you get the hell out.

[Midnyte_Sun]

I think the US lost a golden opportunity (after the Soviets left Afghanistan) to rebuild the government. Had they done that, I doubt we would be in this situation now.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by babbage

I'd forgotten how much Laura Bush always looks like a Stepford Wife with her thousand-yard-stare and rictus grin.

And yet she is the farthest thing from it....

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Originally Posted by Kelly

I don't agree with either of them....

We did not need to send in full forces to Afghanistan to find Bin Laden or to overthrow the Taliban. Conflicts since then have shown us this.......but in reference to Afghanistan, it is a tribal country and any attempt at unifying it futile...and apparently the people making the decisions forgot history.

As far as Iraq, that was finishing what his father did....instead Bush II should have taken the lead of his father, and when going to war to set a specific mandate to meet, and once its met you get the hell out.

We shouldn't have gone into Iraq period. If we had gone in and gone out immediately after the invasion, sure we would have spent a lot less money and lost a lot fewer US lives, but the country would have still melted down into a sectarian war between Shia and Sunnis. That would have been the same. Plus, we probably wouldn't have captured Saddam or his sons Uday and Qusay, so they would have been phantoms haunting our consciousness, the same way Osama was until he was finally killed last year. Hell, they could have even tried to make a play to get back into power once the US withdrew. If we left in April 2003 after dissolving the Baathists government, exactly who would have been left in charge to defend the country? Any cobbled-together puppet government would have collapsed immediately without adequate training, funding or popular support.

I agreed with the mission in Afghanistan (but now think it's time to get out), but Iraq was and always will be a colossally shortsighted and hubristic blunder. Saddam would have been toppled by the Arab spring by now anyway.

[thechangingman]

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and recent events have shown that a popular uprising if properly backed by a stronger country or a coalition of countries, can have the same impact as an armed incursion with limited or no casualties for the foreign power.
the outcome is a little less predictable ( marginally so) but it's far more organic and productive in the long run.
fact is, Bush was doing what his advisors were telling him was the best course of action. the resulting boondoggle was not entirely Bush or his advisors, but the many mistakes and often hopeful overestimations of both, and in a certain way, the American people's own mistakes regarding the situation.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by thechangingman

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and recent events have shown that a popular uprising if properly backed by a stronger country or a coalition of countries, can have the same impact as an armed incursion with limited or no casualties for the foreign power.
the outcome is a little less predictable ( marginally so) but it's far more organic and productive in the long run.
fact is, Bush was doing what his advisors were telling him was the best course of action. the resulting boondoggle was not entirely Bush or his advisors, but the many mistakes and often hopeful overestimations of both, and in a certain way, the American people's own mistakes regarding the situation.

I understand what you are saying, but as Bush himself has said several times, the buck stopped with him.

My problem with the WMD's (which I believe Saddam did have at one time) were not a good reason for going in.....as I just said, I believe he had them at one point.

BUT, my problem is, if they were that dangerous, why didn't we go in immediately when we found out what they did to the Kurds? The Anfal Genocide was in 1988....people knew it happened, where were we then? And many of the same advisers to the President then, were the advisers to the President in 2003....hmmmm.....

[JJJ's Ulcer]

But anyway Saddam did not have WMDs when we went into Iraq in 2003. This is most evident by the fact they weren't used. If there was ever a time....