What is Bush up to lately?

[fightingquaker13]

TW, some things for you to consider:

Number of American pilots killed over the no fly zone? Zero.
Number of Iraqis killed by Saddam? Do either of us know or care? And was it more or less than are dying now? I return to my first question.
Cost of the Iraq war? $704 billion dollars, 3,486 dead Americans. These I care about very much.
The amount of deference you believe we ought to pay to the UN? Some number less than zero.
The reason the Arabs hate us? We're messing around in the Middle East, a region I will cheerfully leave to the camel jockeys the day after we have energy independence. They want to be left alone? Not half as bad as I'd like to deny ever having met them.

In short TW, not one of your arguments pointed to a single vital American interest threatened by Saddam. Yeah, he was a bad guy who oppressed his people and funded anti-Israel terror groups. This differs from our "friends" the Saudi's how? Remember that telathon for suicide bombers?
I'm hardly going to join the Peace Corps or go to Haiti (hell, Haiti has come to us). Its just that I'd really like a hard eyed realist in charge rather than someone who wants to make the rest of the world's problems our own. When W dies his grave stone  will read "Not half the man his father was". (Probably true for most of us, but especially so in his case).
Fq13

[twyacht]

So since no American pilots were shot down, the only country to uphold sanctions and treaty violations was going to be who?

Just let him thumb his nose at the world, like Iran is now, and just what,....let him be? The scandal for food for oil, was enabled BY THE UN!! He didn't just fund anti-Israeli terrorist groups, he funded TERRORISTS!. Considering all the other intelligence agencies, was in agreement, and Saddam's personal fondness for using chemical weapons against the Kurds....etc,.... et. al... The world after 9/11 knew that we were going to kick ass. Remember, Quadaffi got real humble after 9/11 cause, for a brief time, he didn't know how far the U.S ass kicking was going to go, and he was having Reagan flashbacks.

I like it like that. It's all the damn barbaric savages understand. Talking, appeasing, bowing, and rationalizing, will get us another 9/11, and frankly I'm surprised we haven't had another one yet.

And keep going back, how long have the Muslim extremists hated infidels? Gee, Crusades or earlier??? America, if I recall wasn;t even around than.

Vital American interest threatened by Saddam?

Like I posted, keep watching things happen, and eventually, you'll ask:

Gee, How did that happen? Saddam was enabling and funding every anti American terrorist group he could reach, and let the party and train in his back yard. Which terrorist went to get medical aide in Iraq, after being wounded???

If you want a hard eyed realist view, try thinking of a foreign policy that is not so passive when dealing with terrorists that would gladly slit your families throat if given the chance. Sure Saudi America sucks, and is not our ally, just like Russia.

Hey, but I hear travel restrictions are going to be lifted to Cuba!!! We'll have to jump a quick flight down get some cigars and rum, spend our money on another two-bit dictators country, but at least their amenities, and they don;t want to kill us.

[ericire12]

Every dead American can be laid at W's feet.
FQ13

You know, I read this and then decided to go read a few other threads before commenting..... but I really cant get past my original assesment.

Quaker, you are a sorry son of a bitch! I mean you have said some stupid sh-it in the past, but this might actually have topped them all. You may think that the war in Iraq was the worst military move in the history of the world, but to say something like that is just f-ucking horrible. You make me sick. Do yourself and everybody else a favor and get lost. Go hang out at someplace like the Huffington Post where 90% of your comments will be appreciated.

You are a disgrace, and I seriously dont understand how it is that you dont get punched in the face more often.









*I am done with this thread

[tombogan03884]

As usual FQ is 180 degrees off.
We should have killed Saddam in 91, but Bush #1 did not want to get bogged down in the Urban warfare that anyone with the IQ of a turnip could predict.
FQ shows his lack of research by his ridiculous claim that sanctions were working. As we were invading Baghdad, French and Russian planes were still delivering weapons and high end Night vision equipment.
Food for Oil ? Don't make me laugh, probably one of the most egregious scams ever run by the UN, the ones who made money were Putin and Company.
According to various sources, most recently Tariq Aziz, Saddam had indeed divested him self of his weapons program, however, because of his fears of retribution from his neighbors, (Iran ) he refused to prove this publicly, and THAT was the specific requirement of the UN resolutions, there fore whether he had them or not, he was in violation.
The only one that sanctions worked for was BJ Clinton, every time he had a hearing about Monica, he announced it by bombing something in Iraq as a diversion.
As to the War in Iraq, First off, what you and the other peace mongers can't comprehend is that you are talking about 2 different conflicts ,  the war "With " Iraq only lasted a couple weeks, it was followed by the major combat portion of the "War on Terror", where we have been fighting both Sunni and Shiite extremists, In other words, Al Queda AND Iran.  Iraq was actually a good candidate for this since they were a relatively modern nation, used to having a strong central Govt. that could be replaced with another strong central Govt.
I have no doubt at all that as soon as we leave they will fight among themselves and the winner will establish another dictatorship of some sort because that is the only type of govt capable of maintaining order in that culture, our involvement however, helps assure that it's Iraqi's fighting , with out interference from AQ or Iran, and may even keep it at the political level and minimize the number of" bodies in the street". In Iraq, we have a clearly defined bench mark for "Victory", that is a functional Central Govt. that is capable of tending to it's own security.
Afghanistan is a completely different kettle of fish.
Our only stated objective for going there was to kill AQ members and punish the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden.
With the removal of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance, and the flight of AQ from Tora Bora that mission was complete, the alleged "Nation building we have been engaged in since is nothing but an expensive useless sop to liberal emotion and their inability to admit the need for a purely punitive operation. The fact, based on past history, is that, no matter what we do in that country, with in 6 months of us leaving they will remove any strong central Govt and revert to the decentralized "tribalism that has served them for hundreds of years.
People have condemned Karzia for talking to the Taliban, and the possibility of him doing a deal with them.
No matter what you think, he has no choice, The Pashtun's, (the ethnic group that the Taliban belong to ) are the largest minority in Afghanistan and Pakistan, any other solution would be like having a national referendum but leaving out Ca, NY, and Texas,
The British, and Russians have spent a couple hundred years triing to install a strong central govt in A-stan with out success, the only things we prove with our continued involvement is our naivety, and  pigheadedness.
Will they continue to kill each other ? Of course. does any body truly care ? Not so much.

[Solus]

Yawn.   Another insightful and well written opinion by Tom B.

 

[Sponsor]

[JC5123]

Not to steer this back to being on topic, but I haven't heard anyone mention what BHO is doing while Bush is greeting returning troops. That's right! BHO is making a trip through Texas blaming Bush for all the ills of the world.

I have said it before, but I think it bears repeating. BHO has ruined the presidency for black Americans. Because the next time a "well spoken black man" runs for office, people are going to remember what happened the last time we did that. 

[fightingquaker13]

Eric, you, as usuall, offer vitriol without arument. Don't get me wrong, your moral outrage act is quite immpressive. If Dana Carvey hadn't already mastered "The Church Lady" you could have had a money maker here. As it is? A swing and a miss. Get something resembling a real argument or stay home. My critique of this war is a conservative one. Don't believe me? Ask Pat Buchanan. I'm basically giving you his line because I think he's right. And as for my "disgraceful" comment about w? Whatever happened to that conservative argument about personal responsibility? I've got it, you seem to only find yours when blaming the other team W was in charge. The buck stops with him.

 As to the actual arguments? Well, here's my point. There were no serious connections betwen Sadam and Al Queda (a doctors visit not withstanding). In fact, the quickest way to die in Saddam's Iraq was to push for Sharia.  Likewise, while Iraq was stable and Sunni controlled there was a reqional counterweight to Iran. Something to restrain their ambition from being a regional hegemon. My POV is simply that we launched an unneccessary war whose outcome weakens rather than strenghtens our interests in the region and has harmed our ability, via diplomatic and military exhaustion, to pursue our real enemies in Iran and with Al Queda. Afghanistan is a whole other topic.
FQ13
PS  

[tombogan03884]

Eric, you, as usuall, offer vitriol without arument. Don't get me wrong, your moral outrage act is quite immpressive. If Dana Carvey hadn't already mastered "The Church Lady" you could have had a money maker here. As it is? A swing and a miss. Get something resembling a real argument or stay home. My critique of this war is a conservative one. Don't believe me? Ask Pat Buchanan. I'm basically giving you his line because I think he's right. And as for my "disgraceful" comment about w? Whatever happened to that conservative argument about personal responsibility? I've got it, you seem to only find yours when blaming the other team W was in charge. The buck stops with him.

 As to the actual arguments? Well, here's my point. There were no serious connections betwen Sadam and Al Queda (a doctors visit not withstanding). In fact, the quickest way to die in Saddam's Iraq was to push for Sharia.  Likewise, while Iraq was stable and Sunni controlled there was a reqional counterweight to Iran. Something to restrain their ambition from being a regional hegemon. My POV is simply that we launched an unneccessary war whose outcome weakens rather than strenghtens our interests in the region and has harmed our ability, via diplomatic and military exhaustion, to pursue our real enemies in Iran and with Al Queda. Afghanistan is a whole other topic.
FQ13
PS  

Shouldn't that read "FO" ?  

What you say is valid, as far as Iraq serving as a counter to Iran, however you are wrong about contacts between AQ and Saddam's intelligence apparatus, those have in fact been verified by both Mossad and MI 6.
You are also off base about the war being "unnecessary" . The presence of US forces in Iraq served as a magnet for AQ and it's wannabe's, how many stories have we heard about AQ members over there who had lived in the US ? Would you rather be walking past them on the street here ? It's the same for the rest of the world, We have killed a butt load of Saudis, Yemeni's, and Syrian's during our time in Iraq. It may seem heartless to send troops to serve as bait, but it did draw large numbers of radicals out from under their rocks for easier killing, and war is not something that can be successfully conducted on the basis of touchy feely BS, it has to be based on a heartless practicality.
As for Eric, I have to agree that he argues like a liberal.

FQ. Before you reply remember, I'm the guy who waded through all 3 volumes of "Gulag Archipelago", and the 2 volume KGB history "The Mitrokin Archive" for entertainment.

[PegLeg45]

I'm the guy who waded through all 3 volumes of "Gulag Archipelago", and the 2 volume KGB history "The Mitrokin Archive" for entertainment.

You're a better man than I am Gunga Din. 

As to the war in Iraq, you are spot on Tom.....
If we must fight terrorism, I suspect most people would rather us be fighting them on their soil than on American soil.


As to Bush and the war, I don't think he took the decision lightly and he probably (hopefully) was doing what he thought was the 'best preemptive move' at the time for our interests in the fight against terrorism. By posting the OP, I just thought it was cool that he goes out to show the troops that even though he sent them to do a tough job, he cares and respects them for doing it.

JMHOFWIW

[fightingquaker13]

You're a better man than I am Gunga Din. 

 By posting the OP, I just thought it was cool that he goes out to show the troops that even though he sent them to do a tough job, he cares and respects them for doing it.

JMHOFWIW

I think you meant "Gulag Din'.
As to OP, agreed.
FQ13