American Politics during the Bush Presidency

[QUOTE=Alan23]It is obvious that you and the other left-wing contributors to this thread did not have a loved one killed or injured in any of the events listed below.[/QUOTE]Alan,

In the past you have maintained a certain level of courteous discourse with those who's point of view did not match your own. This BS comment from you was so ignorant that I am really surprised.

This comment just substantiates the right wing mentality that conservatives like yourself think liberals are traitors just because they have a different POV. That is BS. I am more liberal than not and I DID have a close family member SERIOUSLY injured in the Iraq war-he was in the Marines and was ambushed! Did you? If you didn't than you are a hypocrite and should just pass up commenting!

If liberals had that type of mentality they / we would think all conservatives are nothing but Nazi loving skinheads-who want to live in a dictatorship. We don't--at least I do not. I respect the opinion of the other side without slanderously MIS-labeling them.

Suerte.

Stowe

[QUOTE=Alan23]1993- Clinton - World Trade Center 1st bombing.

1994- Clinton - BsAs bombing #2

1996- Clinton - Khobar towers.

1998- Clinton - Nairobi US Embassy.

1998- Clinton - Dar es Salaam US Embassy.

2000- Clinton - USS Cole attacked.[/QUOTE]I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)[/QUOTE]Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example;

[Quote]In April and May 1944, the Allied air forces lost nearly 12,000 men and over 2,000 aircraft in operations which paved the way for D-Day.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000, including 2500 dead. British casualties on D-Day have been estimated at approximately 2700. The Canadians lost 946 casualties. The US forces lost 6603 men.[/quote]The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example; The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?[/QUOTE]Hey Punter. I don't think you would find many of the left leaning mongers advocating a hands off approach with Al Qaeda. Certainly not me. My beef, and I think the beef of many, has been with the monumentally flawed strategy employed by the Bush administration. Lest we forget, there were NO Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, and there was an historical enmity between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Tracking down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan is one thing (another effort botched by the way) but the decision to invade Iraq led to much head scratching by many in the USA, and as we know, by many countries who heretofore been our staunch allies. So, there began much discussion as to what the REAL agenda of the USA was-oil, establishing a permanent base, or just what exactly? And, a definitive answer has yet to come forth. Remember, the Bush administration's reasons have changed considerably since they initially floated the WMD rationale, and there is much compelling evidence that alot of the WMD "evidence" was contrived.

No sense here in going into the myriad negative and damaging repercussions of the ill fated decision to invade Iraq. It is a long and ugly list, from clearly flaunting the Geneva Convention, creating more, not less, turmoil in the Middle East (including a huge boost to Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts) damaging our economy dramatically, creating confusion and concern amongst our allies, and too many others for me to dredge up on this Sunday morning. Suffice to say, to my way of thinking, a comprehensive screwing of the pooch, perpetrated by people who have still not come clean as to what the actual misguided agenda might have been.

[QUOTE=Punter 127]Come on DR with that kind of thinking we would have surrendered to the Japanese on December the 8th 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The loss of any life is unfortunate but how does 4155 compare with other wars, here's just an example; The point is how many times do you let someone hit you in the nose before you hit them back?[/QUOTE]Good puppy.

My turn to bite the hillbilly. Saddam didn't attack Pearl, may God keep the men and women that perished that day. The Taliban on the other hand fo show fo show had a hand in the destruction of the towers.

Punching Saddam in the face over the events of 9-11 would be like me punching Coach because you punched me and he saw it on TV and said it was a good idea. Now everybody who knows him knows Coach is a rotten coksuker and needs punching. But when he hauls me in front of the judge for punching him and I explain thus "Well your honor, the hillbilly punched me and Coach said he thought it was a good idea and I was afraid Coach might punch me too because he has fists so I punched him first. It was self defense." All the judge is gonna say is "What in the fuck are you talking about numbnuts that boy ain't even got hands?" "Thirty days in county."

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]I don't know but do all of these add up to the 4155 US Servicemen confirmed dead in Iraq? (DOD figure)[/QUOTE]At least these personal sacrifices were made in a campaign that produced results, specifically: A despot removed from office, the liberation of 36 million formerly oppressed people, Al Qaeda beaten to a pulp, and the creation of a new democratic country to counter-balance Iran.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Stowe]Jackson,

"The rate is still lower then the general public". I guess that is a good way to justify it.

Having said that I am not sure where you got that info as I have just googled that info and the suicide rate for the US is 1.3% and the suicide rate for the military (as of 5/29/2008) is 1.9%. I think that means your claim is incorrect.[/QUOTE]Hi Stowe,

I'm not trying to "justify it", I'm just putting it in context. The fact is that our military personnel, despite being subjected to the horrors of combat, are still measurably more emotionally balanced that the average citizen. This certainly is to their credit, and I believe that media attempts to portray our troops as disportionately "suicidal" as a result of their service are completely disingenuous.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Stowe]FYI - suicides of military personal is at an all time high with no end in sight-even higher (per capita) than all other wars.

Another Bush success.

Suerte.

Stowe[/QUOTE]There is an end in sight because we're winning in Iraq, and thus it certainly does qualify as "another Bush success".

[QUOTE=StrayLight]No, probably not a coincidence. If you were to read what Osama bin Laden said before 9/11, or watched some of his early videos, you'd find that he more than achieved his goal with the 9/11 attacks. The idea was to provoke the U. S. Into doing exactly what we did: to over react.

And over react we did. Big time.[/QUOTE]Actually, we did not "over react". The over reaction that Al Qaeda expected was for the USA to launch an all out war against Islam, including (they hoped) nuclear attacks against major Muslim countries, thus giving them the "Holy War" they seek.

Instead, we took our time, made our plans, and ultimately we applied our military force against the terrorist's organizations. Thus we have frustrated their goals and are instead pursuing our goals with surgical precision.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson]At least these personal sacrifices were made in a campaign that produced results, specifically: A despot removed from office, the liberation of 36 million formerly oppressed people, Al Qaeda beaten to a pulp, and the creation of a new democratic country to counter-balance Iran.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]Jax Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, get it, we put them there. Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true." Bin Laden was jerking off in some cave in Afghanistan while he was watching the tanks roll in. Here's an idea, move troops away from were he is to support an invasion of a country were he isn't.

In one post you justify the deaths of 1000's upon 1000's of INNOCENT Iraqi citizens because "the fight is there and not here so we are safer." Yet in this one you justify the invasion because we liberated them. You can't callously justify their slaughter one day, then claim moral high ground the next. Who is responsible for more Iraqi citizens dying Saddam or this administration? Who will liberate them from us?

One more thing regarding this liberation thingy. Saddam was into retail oppression with the exception of the Kurds. The House of Saud is into oppression wholesale, why did we invade Iraq and not the Kingdom. Plus that pesky little fact they never mention on Fox News, 19 of the 20 on 9-11 were Saudis, Bin Laden, Saudi, and the Secret Service guards their embassy.

The very minute we pull the troops from Iraq there will be another Despot in power. My wager is this, Steaks at La Estancia, all entradads, drinks, chica drinks, taxis, plus the duo of my choice for a TLN. Do I have action?

I'm done with this, there is no reasoning on this issue, all of our minds are closed, myself included. Back to pussy.

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Jax Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we went there, get it, we put them there. Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true." Bin Laden was jerking off in some cave in Afghanistan while he was watching the tanks roll in. Here's an idea, move troops away from were he is to support an invasion of a country were he isn't.[/QUOTE]I've already explained this several times, but here it is again:

[QUOTE=Jackson]George Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.

Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting [u]our[/u] [u]army[/u] [u]on[/u] [u]foreign[/u] [u]soil[/u], thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.

Bush knew that the invasion that was needed to cover the real strategy would prove to be politically unpopular, but he did it because it need to be done. Of course, there's nothing to be ashamed about having liberated 36 million people from the subjugation of a homicidal maniac, and for having brought democracy to a country and a region, but it will take 10 to 20 years before people understand that it was the correct thing to do.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Daddy Rulz]Instead of "beaten to a pulp" try "had all of their recruitment wet dreams come true."[/QUOTE]Rack'em up!

I wish fox news and the like would show images like this once in a while.

Jackson, you really don't have a clue what war is like other than what you are "told" from the media. The smells, the screams, your buddy getting his head shot off in front of you, you shoot up a convoy only to find out you shot some kids etc.

If you think that this does not affect our soldiers, sailors and Marines mentally, well I need some of what your smoking.

You should try it some time, I did. I will never be the same either.

These are not my pics, mine were all confiscated by the US State Dept in Gulf War pt one. Before digital cameras.

[QUOTE=Jackson]George Bush knew that for our own defense we needed to take the fight to Al Queda by invading a country directly in the middle of their hornet's nest, effectively sticking a finger right up their ass.

Of course, you can't acknowledge that your strategy was to use another country as a battleground in your own war, so you disguise it as a liberation. The net effect is that you create a magnet for the rabid dogs, luring them into fighting our army on foreign soil, thus keeping them occupied and deflecting their attention from attacking our homeland.[/QUOTE]Jackson,

Of the silly statements I've heard concerning our ill-conceived and poorly executed invasion of Iraq, this ranks up there near the top, and may eventually win out in the end.

Let's just forget for a minute that we had already taken the fight to another country: Afghanistan. Let's just forget that for a minute.

There is absolutely nothing in the history of the Iraq war that indicates the Bush administration even imagined we'd be fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, and every indication that they spent three years in denial once it started happening.

This goes from announcing that major combat was over in May, 2003...

...to sending the operational planning staff for OIF home and turning the war over to an unprepared tactical planning staff shortly after the fall of Baghdad...

...to Bush asking if the CIA station chief was some kind of defeatist when he sent cables warning of the growing insurgency in 2004...

...to allowing the situation to deteriorate through late-2006 under the then-strategy of preparing the Iraqis to take up their own defense.

And so on.

If the idea was to fight Al Qaeda in Iraq, why were we so woefully unprepared? Why did we do such a piss-poor job for three years?

The reason is because the Bush administration was clueless as to what it was getting itself in there, and that the consensus among the war planners was that this entire thing was going to be an easy day, walk-in-the-park affair in which we'd be in and out in fairly short order.

Get a grip, man, and do some reading. The invasion of Iraq had its roots in the Project for the New American Century and the lunatic ideas of Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan. It had its roots in Paul Wolfowitz's years as U. S. Ambassador to Indonesia, and the mistaken lessons he took from People Power Revolution in the Phillipines during his tenure. And it had its roots in Thomas Barnett's theory of Core nations and Gap nations, and a need to pull the Gap nations into the Core.

The last thing on anyone's mind when we invaded Iraq was that we'd be battling Al Qaeda operatives there for years to come. (OK, maybe not the very last thing, but the bottom of the list was visible from there. LOL!)