Question: If Bush leaves office with Iraq in mess

[NoCalMike 0]

Who gets credit? Bush the one who "envisioned it all and dropped the first bombs" or the next line of presidents who righted the sinking ship?

 

(Just a question to pass the time)

[Highland 0]

At first it would be his successors who "righted the sinking ship" but in time (decades) Bush would get his proper due, both good and ill.

[Some Guy 0]

Who gets credit? Bush the one who "envisioned it all and dropped the first bombs" or the next line of presidents who righted the sinking ship?

 

(Just a question to pass the time)

Well, considering it'll take at least 20-30 years to straighten the whole place out, Bush should get the credit. A few generations will have to pass before the vast majority of the country embraces freedom and democracy. Look at our country for an example. It took over 100 years for a substanial amount of our population though that slavery was a bad idea and then another hundred for them to decide that segregation was not such a good one either. Installing a democracy can be done in months, changing the way people think takes years.

 

If Bush's game plan is tha one that is followed, then he deserves the credit. If his plan fails and another's works, that person deserves most of the credit, while Bush would get credit for getting the ball rolling. However if Iraq is s success 20 years from now and more Islamo-facist dictatorships fall, then Bush should get virtually all of the credit. It will be he, whose actions started changing the world for the better.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think it's similar to the arguement of who ended the Cold War (Reagan only or Reagan and everybody else)

[Some Guy 0]

I think it's similar to the arguement of who ended the Cold War (Reagan only or Reagan and everybody else)

Well, the Cold War ended under Bush 41. It was Reagan who really turned up the heat on the Commies and he gets the credit from the right. Gorbachev gets the credit from his fellow left wingers, although in truth he fucked up and caused the downfall of the USSR. When he let Germany go without a fight, he though the his people who think he was nice and would continue to live under tyranny; he was wrong. And the Soviet Union was doomed to fail from the start, any socialist country is. America's Cold War policies, the (predictably failing) Soviet economy, Gorbachev's naivite(SP?), and Reagan forcing them to spend themselves to death, caused the end of the Cold War. Reagan was in essence the closer who came out throwing heat, FDR the starting pitcher and everybody else the middle relief. Bush got virtually no credit because everybody with half a brain realized it was just something that happened on his watch, not something he had done much to cause.

 

The hypothetical that SoCal threw out is different in that Bush 43 started the war and has implemented policies (the Bush Doctrine and such) that may very well lead to a democratic Middle East. If those policies are followed and the Middle East is righted then Bush should get the credit, not the guy who is there when it happens.

 

This is off topic but I thought it was funny, my girlfriend just called me and told me the story. My girlfried lived in Israel at one point (by way of Russia) and her father, who served in the Soveit military (by force) avoided Israel's military by showing up, uncalled upon at the drafting office and asking why he ahdn't been called, demanding a gun so that he could go out and kill Arabs and then jumping on a table and making gun noises while pretending to shoot people. They thought he was nuts and told him to go home. It's funnier if you know the guy, he's 6'2" and 220lbs or so.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bush 43 started the war and has implemented policies (the Bush Doctrine and such) that may very well lead to a democratic Middle East.

LOL. The Bush Doctrine could be what causes this country to be stuck in endless battle for 50+ years. Going after the guys that bloodied our noses is fine, but when he went into Iraq he pretty much made the US a player in Middle East affairs, which is the most brutal and most unforgiving political scene on the planet.

 

What we need for a democratic Middle East first is a President that might not be loved universally, but is mostly liked by those in America outside of the close party circles. Heck, even *I* can say nice things about Reagan, even if I disagreed with how he handled this or that. The second thing is that we need a President who's honest, which is going to be hard to find with these constant races between the two guys who pander the most out of any particular group. Reagan won because he said he'd put an end to the whole thing, and he did.

 

AFAIC, Bush is Evil Mirror Universe Reagan. Ronnie would let you know what he's going to do, how much he's going to need for it, and then go do it. Bush keeps secrets, told us he was going after Al-Qaeda and wound up in Iraq, and keeps escalating the cost as things deviate more and more away from the plan. Let's not even compare spending records.

 

showing up, uncalled upon at the drafting office and asking why he ahdn't been called, demanding a gun

 

Hah.

[Some Guy 0]

Bush 43 started the war and has implemented policies (the Bush Doctrine and such) that may very well lead to a democratic Middle East.

LOL. The Bush Doctrine could be what causes this country to be stuck in endless battle for 50+ years. Going after the guys that bloodied our noses is fine, but when he went into Iraq he pretty much made the US a player in Middle East affairs, which is the most brutal and most unforgiving political scene on the planet.

 

What we need for a democratic Middle East first is a President that might not be loved universally, but is mostly liked by those in America outside of the close party circles. Heck, even *I* can say nice things about Reagan, even if I disagreed with how he handled this or that. The second thing is that we need a President who's honest, which is going to be hard to find with these constant races between the two guys who pander the most out of any particular group. Reagan won because he said he'd put an end to the whole thing, and he did.

 

AFAIC, Bush is Evil Mirror Universe Reagan. Ronnie would let you know what he's going to do, how much he's going to need for it, and then go do it. Bush keeps secrets, told us he was going after Al-Qaeda and wound up in Iraq, and keeps escalating the cost as things deviate more and more away from the plan. Let's not even compare spending records.

 

showing up, uncalled upon at the drafting office and asking why he ahdn't been called, demanding a gun

 

Hah.

I did say that his policies MAY lead to greatness, I didn't say that they would, because I didn;t want to start a different debate(for once).

 

As much as I love Reagan, he didn't win (the first time) because much fo anything that he said, he won because Jimmy Carter was a bumbling idiot when it came to being President. Carter's apporval ratings dropped lower than Nixon's ever did. Just about anyone the GOP threw up there would have beaten Carter. Raegan became great because of the things he did and said.

 

The costs thing was Reagan forcing the Soviets to keep up with our military spending, which he knew they couldn't do for very long. That is very different from what Bush is doing now.

 

In fairness, I think the president believed that there al Queda was in Iraq.

 

I said the examples were different and you are retorting as though I said they were the same or was defending Bush. I was merely stating things as I see them. Had a democrat started this or any other thing, I'd say something similar. History judges people differently, but it is often predicible (given hypothetical situations of what will or won't happen) and occasionally logical. I gave multiple examples of what circumstances Bush would be judged great or poor in the future. It is really impossible to say, while putting partisanship aside how history will judge him because the war is not over. If you asked just about anyone after 9/11 they'd have said that Bush was great and would go down in history as a great president and would cruise to victory in 2004, ask them now and see what they say. Things change.

 

Look at this quote from Naibus:

At first it would be his successors who "righted the sinking ship" but in time (decades) Bush would get his proper due, both good and ill.

 

That's quite possible assumming that the ship was/is sinking and that Bush did not right it himself.

[Guest MikeSC]

LOL. The Bush Doctrine could be what causes this country to be stuck in endless battle for 50+ years.

In case you missed it, Islamic attacks on the U.S have been going on since 1993. It's not like a less forceful policy was slowing anything down. What Bush is doing is taking the fight TO them, rather than waiting for them to strike.

 

9/11 showed the tragedy of waiting for it.

Going after the guys that bloodied our noses is fine, but when he went into Iraq he pretty much made the US a player in Middle East affairs, which is the most brutal and most unforgiving political scene on the planet.

It's also the home base of the problem. It'd be like saying "Well, we defeated Italy --- but we shouldn't go into Nazi Germany"

What we need for a democratic Middle East first is a President that might not be loved universally, but is mostly liked by those in America outside of the close party circles.

You confuse the visceral and irrational hatred of those on the left for Bush for the reality of everyday America.

 

Hate to break it to you, but the hatred just isn't there.

Heck, even *I* can say nice things about Reagan, even if I disagreed with how he handled this or that.

Of course, he's been out of office for 16 years. If you were this age back then, you'd be carping on how he was going to cause a nuclear holocaust with the Soviets and how we should unilaterally disarm to show how good we are.

 

It's sad how much flak Reagan got, considering how dead-on accurate he was on handling the Soviets.

 

And Some Guy is right --- Reagan was helped by the fact that not even Democrats liked Jimmy Carter. The man was the worst President --- by a big margin --- we had.

The second thing is that we need a President who's honest, which is going to be hard to find with these constant races between the two guys who pander the most out of any particular group. Reagan won because he said he'd put an end to the whole thing, and he did.

And, lord knows, people weren't calling Reagan a bumbling fool whose advisors ran the show, right? God knows his opponents gave Ronald tons of respect.

AFAIC, Bush is Evil Mirror Universe Reagan. Ronnie would let you know what he's going to do, how much he's going to need for it, and then go do it. Bush keeps secrets, told us he was going after Al-Qaeda and wound up in Iraq, and keeps escalating the cost as things deviate more and more away from the plan. Let's not even compare spending records.

Actually, Bush said was going after TERRORISTS AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT OR HARBOR THEM. He is doing just that.

Who gets credit? Bush the one who "envisioned it all and dropped the first bombs" or the next line of presidents who righted the sinking ship?

You assume that people study history at all.

 

That Bush is getting ANY blame for the problems with terrorism is laughable, as they had been a problem well before Bush even considered running for President.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

9/11 showed the tragedy of waiting for it.

No. If 9/11 showed anything, it was doing nothing. It was quite a fluke though, nothing else in the history of terror attacks has ever been done on that scale, and even Osama himself was shocked that it worked.

 

Go ahead and say Clinton should have done more, but don't say that excuses doing stuff to people only because they CAN attack us. Because almost anyone CAN.

 

It's also the home base of the problem. It'd be like saying "Well, we defeated Italy --- but we shouldn't go into Nazi Germany"

 

Nazi Germany was one country instead of a dozen or so, and hasn't been in the middle of fighting for centuries.

 

You confuse the visceral and irrational hatred of those on the left for Bush for the reality of everyday America.

 

Bush will lose it if he doesn't have any plan to make the war stop by November. Almost nobody likes to hear this shit about how the War On Terror will be America's calling card for the next several decades and how it will be taxing our nation's burden for a long time to come. That's not the sign of a man with a plan. That's the sign of a man who's just going to wage war for however many terms until someone comes in and replaces him.

 

It's a close race, but it could turn more easily based on Bush's Iraq performance than it could on taxes or Kerry's voting record. This war will soon cost a quarter of what the entirety of Vietnam cost.

 

Of course, he's been out of office for 16 years. If you were this age back then, you'd be carping on how he was going to cause a nuclear holocaust with the Soviets and how we should unilaterally disarm to show how good we are.

 

Oh hell no. An arms race and mutually assured destruction is an expensive but ultimately final way to solve any conflict. It worked.

 

Unfortunately, the Russians didn't pin their death and destruction on God, which is the case here. God makes people do funny things, like call bluff and talk about virgins when faced with annihilation

 

And, lord knows, people weren't calling Reagan a bumbling fool whose advisors ran the show, right? God knows his opponents gave Ronald tons of respect.

 

I was in goddamn diapers or grade school, don't ask me to excuse "the left" of the 1980s. I'm was just saying GOOD THINGS that Reagan did, and you're coming back to me with no reason about all the resistance he had doing it, or something. I can't own any responsibility for that. Holy hell.

[Guest MikeSC]

No. If 9/11 showed anything, it was doing nothing. It was quite a fluke though, nothing else in the history of terror attacks has ever been done on that scale, and even Osama himself was shocked that it worked.

Except, of course, that the WTC were attacked before --- in 1993.

 

And we had embassies bombed.

 

And a warship bombed.

 

But, hey, those were flukes too, huh?

Go ahead and say Clinton should have done more, but don't say that excuses doing stuff to people only because they CAN attack us. Because almost anyone CAN.

And if we feel they might, it's our job to make sure it doesn't happen. Tough crap for them. Don't give us a reason to feel threatened and you'll be all toasty. You don't see us threatening to invade France, do you?

It's also the home base of the problem. It'd be like saying "Well, we defeated Italy --- but we shouldn't go into Nazi Germany"

 

Nazi Germany was one country instead of a dozen or so, and hasn't been in the middle of fighting for centuries.

We are dealing with a big problem. Plain and simple.

You confuse the visceral and irrational hatred of those on the left for Bush for the reality of everyday America.

Bush will lose it if he doesn't have any plan to make the war stop by November.

If true, I will have lost much respect for my country.

Almost nobody likes to hear this shit about how the War On Terror will be America's calling card for the next several decades and how it will be taxing our nation's burden for a long time to come. That's not the sign of a man with a plan. That's the sign of a man who's just going to wage war for however many terms until someone comes in and replaces him.

I gotta know --- at what point did the entire left become scared little girls?

 

Honestly.

 

At a point, there were once SOME Democrats who realized that some fights were worth fighting.

 

Now we have a group who Neville Chamberlain would call gutless cowards.

It's a close race, but it could turn more easily based on Bush's Iraq performance than it could on taxes or Kerry's voting record. This war will soon cost a quarter of what the entirety of Vietnam cost.

I've seen p-whipped men with more backbone than the American left.

Of course, he's been out of office for 16 years. If you were this age back then, you'd be carping on how he was going to cause a nuclear holocaust with the Soviets and how we should unilaterally disarm to show how good we are.

Oh hell no. An arms race and mutually assured destruction is an expensive but ultimately final way to solve any conflict. It worked.

Don't even TRY and BS us and say you'd have supported it at the time because you OBVIOUSLY would not have.

Unfortunately, the Russians didn't pin their death and destruction on God, which is the case here. God makes people do funny things, like call bluff and talk about virgins when faced with annihilation

Funny thing is --- the Russians had a better shot at winning than the monkeys do.

And, lord knows, people weren't calling Reagan a bumbling fool whose advisors ran the show, right? God knows his opponents gave Ronald tons of respect.

I was in goddamn diapers or grade school, don't ask me to excuse "the left" of the 1980s. I'm was just saying GOOD THINGS that Reagan did, and you're coming back to me with no reason about all the resistance he had doing it, or something. I can't own any responsibility for that. Holy hell.

Then don't sit here and pretend you wouldn't have carped about Reagan and every little thing he did at the time because we all know you damned well would have.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

And a warship bombed.

Which last time I check is a fucking DELCARATION OF WAR. I'm still stupified as to why nothing was done in response to that. Osama was probably like "man, these guy's don't give a shit do they?"

[Guest MikeSC]

And a warship bombed.

Which last time I check is a fucking DELCARATION OF WAR. I'm still stupified as to why nothing was done in response to that. Osama was probably like "man, these guy's don't give a shit do they?"

'Twas probably just a fluke.

 

You know, like Pearl Harbor.

 

Man, did we overreact about that or what?

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

And a warship bombed.

Which last time I check is a fucking DELCARATION OF WAR. I'm still stupified as to why nothing was done in response to that. Osama was probably like "man, these guy's don't give a shit do they?"

'Twas probably just a fluke.

 

You know, like Pearl Harbor.

 

Man, did we overreact about that or what?

-=Mike

The thing is America has used much weaker and unsubstantiated incidents as the catalysts to go to war when it suits an agenda, but when a boat of Bin Laden funded terrorists harbored by Yemen pulls up next to and blow a fucking hole into one of our warships, I'd say that deserves some retaliation.

Of course if we go on about why the country was distracted and who's fault that was, we could go in circles for hours...

[Guest MikeSC]

And a warship bombed.

Which last time I check is a fucking DELCARATION OF WAR. I'm still stupified as to why nothing was done in response to that. Osama was probably like "man, these guy's don't give a shit do they?"

'Twas probably just a fluke.

 

You know, like Pearl Harbor.

 

Man, did we overreact about that or what?

-=Mike

The thing is America has used much weaker and unsubstantiated incidents as the catalysts to go to war when it suits an agenda, but when a boat of Bin Laden funded terrorists harbored by Yemen pulls up next to and blow a fucking hole into one of our warships, I'd say that deserves some retaliation.

Of course if we go on about why the country was distracted and who's fault that was, we could go in circles for hours...

Oh, we probably brought it on ourselves --- you know, by considering the possibility that the evil George Bush might be a Presidential candidate.

-=Mike

[Styles 0]

Oh, we probably brought it on ourselves --- you know, by considering the possibility that the evil George Bush might be a Presidential candidate.

-=Mike

I love that argument. As much as he went off the deep end since losing the election (NOTMYPRESIDENTLOL2000~!), it's amazing that liberals don't realize that the same shit would have happened, and would have been handled in the same way (Iraq invasion included) if Al Gore was president.

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, we probably brought it on ourselves --- you know, by considering the possibility that the evil George Bush might be a Presidential candidate. 

                        -=Mike

I love that argument. As much as he went off the deep end since losing the election (NOTMYPRESIDENTLOL2000~!), it's amazing that liberals don't realize that the same shit would have happened, and would have been handled in the same way (Iraq invasion included) if Al Gore was president.

It might not have, honestly.

 

Clinton didn't show any backbone when a WARSHIP OF OURS got bombed.

 

And he was the TOUGH one of the duo.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

In years to come, IF Iraq is sorted out, I think Bush will be remembered as the person who waged an illegal war based on lies that got (currently) 10,000 Iraqi CIVILIANS killed and 1,000 US servicemen killed. For historians to deem Bush as some kind of hero to the Iraqi people and the middle east would be very, very disturbing indeed.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Unger, Unger...

 

War has to be legal?

I'm not following you, and that's a very very poor argument. Where's the 10,000 come from anyways.

 

Back up what you say with facts dood.

[Guest hunger4unger]

Unger, Unger...

 

War has to be legal?

I'm not following you, and that's a very very poor argument. Where's the 10,000 come from anyways.

 

Back up what you say with facts dood.

Ok, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be legal but authority from the UN would have been nice. Some kind of justification would have been real nice too. (False claims of "WMD" was NOT justification).

 

Countless media outlets are reporting the 10,000 figure. I most recently remember the figure from yesterdays Sunday Mirror newspaper.

 

So..more Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq by US and UK forces than Iraqi's have killed US and UK troops. And US and UK citizens. WAIT. Iraq have never, EVER attacked US or UK soil. We've killed 10,000 of them regardless. Granted, some of them would have been "bad guys" and killed because they were attacking forces so that's fine by me...the vast majority were killed during the "shock and awe" campaign where US bombers randomly bombed Iraqi targets with little regard for the civilian population.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Well, pretty much everyone believed in the WMD, so it wasn't false justification more so than just bad intelligence. That's very difficult to pin on the President negatively.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok, it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be legal but authority from the UN would have been nice. Some kind of justification would have been real nice too. (False claims of "WMD" was NOT justification).

Your own country's intel services said the same thing our intel service said.

Countless media outlets are reporting the 10,000 figure. I most recently remember the figure from yesterdays Sunday Mirror newspaper.

And do THEY indicate where this number came from? Arab news outlets?

So..more Iraqi civilians have been killed in Iraq by US and UK forces than Iraqi's have killed US and UK troops. And US and UK citizens. WAIT. Iraq have never, EVER attacked US or UK soil. We've killed 10,000 of them regardless. Granted, some of them would have been "bad guys" and killed because they were attacking forces so that's fine by me...the vast majority were killed during the "shock and awe" campaign where US bombers randomly bombed Iraqi targets with little regard for the civilian population.

Your last sentence took any attempt at credibility you were trying to make, pissed on it, and then flushed it down the toilet.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

Well, my government actually "sexed up" the WMD dossier and it is now accepted that Blair manipulated the truth. Bush and cronies put pressure on the intelligence agencies to come up with evidence - whether Bush was misguided or not it still remains that there was no WMD, not a trace and he went ahead banging on about WMD's despite warnings from UN inspectors and his OWN inspectors that they didn't think they would find any traces of WMD's.

 

It wasn't indicated where the number came from - in my estimation probably from the red cross. It's widely accepted that the 10,000 figure is accurate.

 

So you deny that US bombs killed ANY Iraqi civilians whilst Baghdad and other Iraqi cities were being subjected to "shock and awe" ?

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, my government actually "sexed up" the WMD dossier and it is now accepted that Blair manipulated the truth. Bush and cronies put pressure on the intelligence agencies to come up with evidence - whether Bush was misguided or not it still remains that there was no WMD, not a trace and he went ahead banging on about WMD's despite warnings from UN inspectors and his OWN inspectors that they didn't think they would find any traces of WMD's.

 

It wasn't indicated where the number came from - in my estimation probably from the red cross. It's widely accepted that the 10,000 figure is accurate.

 

So you deny that US bombs killed ANY Iraqi civilians whilst Baghdad and other Iraqi cities were being subjected to "shock and awe" ?

YOU said the U.S "indiscriminately" bombed -- which is so ludicrous that any points you attempt to make our washed out by the sheer idiocy of that comment.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

Where the hell did I type "indiscriminately" ?!

 

I am not suggesting that the bombing took place to specifically kill and injure civilians - I am saying that the bombing took place with little regard for the civilian population.

[Guest MikeSC]

Where the hell did I type "indiscriminately" ?!

 

I am not suggesting that the bombing took place to specifically kill and injure civilians - I am saying that the bombing took place with little regard for the civilian population.

Sorry, "randomly" bombed was the phrase you used.

 

Still exceptionally incorrect.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

Ok, perhaps not quite random bombings. Perhaps it was planned to bomb housing areas.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ok, perhaps not quite random bombings. Perhaps it was planned to bomb housing areas.

Except, of course, that they didn't.

-=Mike

[Guest hunger4unger]

Yes, they did. Houses were blown up. Stores, musuems, places of work were blown up.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, they did. Houses were blown up. Stores, musuems, places of work were blown up.

And I think you're LYING --- and going by your track record on reporting "atrocities" committed by the U.S, I'm likely correct.

-=Mike

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Who gets credit?  Bush the one who "envisioned it all and dropped the first bombs" or the next line of presidents who righted the sinking ship?

 

(Just a question to pass the time) 

Well, considering it'll take at least 20-30 years to straighten the whole place out, Bush should get the credit. A few generations will have to pass before the vast majority of the country embraces freedom and democracy. Look at our country for an example. It took over 100 years for a substanial amount of our population though that slavery was a bad idea and then another hundred for them to decide that segregation was not such a good one either. Installing a democracy can be done in months, changing the way people think takes years.

 

If Bush's game plan is tha one that is followed, then he deserves the credit. If his plan fails and another's works, that person deserves most of the credit, while Bush would get credit for getting the ball rolling. However if Iraq is s success 20 years from now and more Islamo-facist dictatorships fall, then Bush should get virtually all of the credit. It will be he, whose actions started changing the world for the better.

Funny I'd give the credit to the Iraqi people who had the balls to stand up for freedom when they knew they'd likely be murdered by terrorists, not Bush who's perfectly safe on another continent.