The War President (1 Viewer)

[26 X World Champs]

Yes friends, George W (for WAR) Bush is the one and only American President who invaded another country pre-emptively, supposedly doing so as a "last resort." Here's a great op-ed from today's NY Times.

The most interesting part of this piece is the new Rasmussen Poll that shows 49% of Americans blame Bush more for the war in Iraq than Saddam (44%).

Repeat, America believes that Bush is to blame for the Iraq War. Now, before my right wing comrades have heart failure over this fact let's state what it is saying, OK? It's saying that 49% of Americans believe that had it not been for Bush we would not be in a war in Iraq today. We can blame (rightfully so) Saddam for being one of the most evil people in the last 100 years, but he wasn't going to start a war with the USA or anyone else. Bush started the war based on false pretense, and he is to blame for our being in a war.

If Bush had a larger brain he would have actually only entered into a war as a last resort like he claimed, but no.......George W (WAR) Bush started a war as a first resort....Here's the piece by Paul Krugman:

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 24, 2005

VIENNA

In this former imperial capital, every square seems to contain a giant statue of a Habsburg on horseback, posing as a conquering hero.

America's founders knew all too well how war appeals to the vanity of rulers and their thirst for glory. That's why they took care to deny presidents the kingly privilege of making war at their own discretion.

But after 9/11 President Bush, with obvious relish, declared himself a "war president." And he kept the nation focused on martial matters by morphing the pursuit of Al Qaeda into a war against Saddam Hussein.

In November 2002, Helen Thomas, the veteran White House correspondent, told an audience, "I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war" - but she made it clear that Mr. Bush was the exception. And she was right.

Leading the nation wrongfully into war strikes at the heart of democracy. It would have been an unprecedented abuse of power even if the war hadn't turned into a military and moral quagmire. And we won't be able to get out of that quagmire until we face up to the reality of how we got in.

Let me talk briefly about what we now know about the decision to invade Iraq, then focus on why it matters.

The administration has prevented any official inquiry into whether it hyped the case for war. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that it did.

And then there's the Downing Street Memo - actually the minutes of a prime minister's meeting in July 2002 - in which the chief of British overseas intelligence briefed his colleagues about his recent trip to Washington.

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam," says the memo, "through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." It doesn't get much clearer than that.

The U.S. news media largely ignored the memo for five weeks after it was released in The Times of London. Then some asserted that it was "old news" that Mr. Bush wanted war in the summer of 2002, and that W.M.D. were just an excuse. No, it isn't. Media insiders may have suspected as much, but they didn't inform their readers, viewers and listeners. And they have never held Mr. Bush accountable for his repeated declarations that he viewed war as a last resort.

Still, some of my colleagues insist that we should let bygones be bygones. The question, they say, is what we do now. But they're wrong: it's crucial that those responsible for the war be held to account.

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.

On one side, the people who sold this war, unable to face up to the fact that their fantasies of a splendid little war have led to disaster, are still peddling illusions: the insurgency is in its "last throes," says **** Cheney. On the other, they still have moderates and even liberals intimidated: anyone who suggests that the United States will have to settle for something that falls far short of victory is accused of being unpatriotic.

We need to deprive these people of their ability to mislead and intimidate. And the best way to do that is to make it clear that the people who led us to war on false pretenses have no credibility, and no right to lecture the rest of us about patriotism.

The good news is that the public seems ready to hear that message - readier than the media are to deliver it. Major media organizations still act as if only a small, left-wing fringe believes that we were misled into war, but that "fringe" now comprises much if not most of the population.

In a Gallup poll taken in early April - that is, before the release of the Downing Street Memo - 50 percent of those polled agreed with the proposition that the administration "deliberately misled the American public" about Iraq's W.M.D. In a new Rasmussen poll, 49 percent said that Mr. Bush was more responsible for the war than Saddam Hussein, versus 44 percent who blamed Saddam.

Once the media catch up with the public, we'll be able to start talking seriously about how to get out of Iraq.

E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com

 

[stsburns]

I responded! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[stsburns]

Hi 26 X! :argue :2wave:

 

[ILikeDubyah]

Why did manifest destiny have to stop at the Pacific??? The more countries you invade & occupy, the more natural resources you gain, the more money you gain, etc, etc, etc....Why is it that the most powerful country on Earth has to look to the ****-ant countries for acceptance? They don't like us, too bad, we control 75% of the world's nukes....test us.
I totally disagree with you. I think that if Bushy were able to do his job without all of the bleeding heart liberals whining in all directions, this war would have been over years ago....He would have just bombed the crap out of them from the git-go, not caring who he hit, and looking back, I think that would have been a great strategy. If no one was on our side to begin with, we wouldn't have had to care about ******* anyone more off. Liberals and human rights activists are to blame for the ongoing war....you hear it on the news every day about how some "innocent" person was killed.....FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS & YOU WON"T BE KILLED! And as for human rights, what about the human rights of those n the WTC, Pentagon, & PA. on Sept. 11th, Moo-hamad didn't seem to take those into consideration. (I'm not saying that ALL Muslims are bad, but as we can see from the ongoing war, it's sure hard to weed out the sane ones.) Put it in to their terms...Hamurabi's code...an eye for an eye.....we have free pass for about 3000 civilians that we can kill.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

That may be one of the most disgusting and fascist posts I have ever read.

A free pass to kill civilians? What are you? A terrorist?

 

[Mixed View]

I agree. I would hate Bush if he bombed any innocent person. That statement was pretty evil and terrerist like. That is actually the same concept terrerist use. "bomb them all, even the innocent ones!"

 

[Mixed View]

Personally I believe this war is the beginning of several wars like the bible says there will and there will be rumors. we'll have to see, won't we?

 

[KevinWan]

Why did manifest destiny have to stop at the Pacific??? The more countries you invade & occupy, the more natural resources you gain, the more money you gain, etc, etc, etc....Why is it that the most powerful country on Earth has to look to the ****-ant countries for acceptance? They don't like us, too bad, we control 75% of the world's nukes....test us.
I totally disagree with you. I think that if Bushy were able to do his job without all of the bleeding heart liberals whining in all directions, this war would have been over years ago....He would have just bombed the crap out of them from the git-go, not caring who he hit, and looking back, I think that would have been a great strategy. If no one was on our side to begin with, we wouldn't have had to care about ******* anyone more off. Liberals and human rights activists are to blame for the ongoing war....you hear it on the news every day about how some "innocent" person was killed.....FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS & YOU WON"T BE KILLED! And as for human rights, what about the human rights of those n the WTC, Pentagon, & PA. on Sept. 11th, Moo-hamad didn't seem to take those into consideration. (I'm not saying that ALL Muslims are bad, but as we can see from the ongoing war, it's sure hard to weed out the sane ones.) Put it in to their terms...Hamurabi's code...an eye for an eye.....we have free pass for about 3000 civilians that we can kill.

Who are you Ann Coulter???

Not that I mind... I happen to like her. I like Coulter's solution to winning the War on Terror: make all Muslims Christians... without Islam, whos there around to be Islamic extremists???

 

[jallman]

Before the backlash can start, let me begin by saying that I do not agree with the war in Iraq. However, if we are going to be an imperialist nation and use war to further our own gains, then by all means, lets go to war. Real war; not this 12 soldiers this day and 32 on this day...I mean set out to level the desert and not leave even a camel standing when we reach a point of opposition. All we are doing right now is back-peddling and losing more of our own soldiers in handfuls, where if we set out to do the job right and let warriors lead the war, and let humanitarians take care of our own here at home--this whole situation would be over.

But let me again reiterate...I dont think we should be at war to begin with. Its just that now that we are...what else are we going to do?

 

[cnredd]

Who are you Ann Coulter???

Not that I mind... I happen to like her. I like Coulter's solution to winning the War on Terror: make all Muslims Christians... without Islam, whos there around to be Islamic extremists???

Ann Couter is an ass....with a nice ass, mind you....but an ass nonetheless.

She DID have an all-time quote though...

"If George Bush cured cancer, the liberals would start complaining about the unemployment of lab rats."

 

[Arch Enemy]

Why did manifest destiny have to stop at the Pacific??? The more countries you invade & occupy, the more natural resources you gain, the more money you gain, etc, etc, etc....Why is it that the most powerful country on Earth has to look to the ****-ant countries for acceptance? They don't like us, too bad, we control 75% of the world's nukes....test us.
I totally disagree with you. I think that if Bushy were able to do his job without all of the bleeding heart liberals whining in all directions, this war would have been over years ago....He would have just bombed the crap out of them from the git-go, not caring who he hit, and looking back, I think that would have been a great strategy. If no one was on our side to begin with, we wouldn't have had to care about ******* anyone more off. Liberals and human rights activists are to blame for the ongoing war....you hear it on the news every day about how some "innocent" person was killed.....FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS & YOU WON"T BE KILLED! And as for human rights, what about the human rights of those n the WTC, Pentagon, & PA. on Sept. 11th, Moo-hamad didn't seem to take those into consideration. (I'm not saying that ALL Muslims are bad, but as we can see from the ongoing war, it's sure hard to weed out the sane ones.) Put it in to their terms...Hamurabi's code...an eye for an eye.....we have free pass for about 3000 civilians that we can kill.

10,455 out of 20,168 doesn't Equal 75% of the Worlds Nukes.

You must be suicidal. If we shoot a nuclear weapon we break all of the Nuke Treaties, therefore everyone else will launch their weapons at us causing Nuclear Winter and the end of the human race as we know it.

What War would have been over years ago? The Invasion of Iraq was swift and no Liberals stood in his way, in-fact they couldn't do anything about it. Oh if you're talking about your precious little "War on Terror" then I'm sorry to inform you that it cannot be won.

You honestly don't want the world to live by "An eye for an eye" we'd no long exist, don't forget we did commit genocide on the Native Americans. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see American Soldiers being harrassed and abused by the terroist, just like we did at Abu (/end sarcasm).

You're post was utterly null of any point. At the time of our expansion 99% of all civilized nations would have kicked the living crap out of us. The only reason why England didn't return to dismantle us was because they had war debts to pay, not to mention they got a better deal with giving us our freedom then them actually owning us.

 

[teacher]

You must be suicidal. If we shoot a nuclear weapon we break all of the Nuke Treaties, therefore everyone else will launch their weapons at us causing Nuclear Winter and the end of the human race as we know it.

As the NBC (Nuclear, Biological,Chemical) enlisted guy for my company during my stint in the military I assure you that the "nuclear winter" scenario is very wrong. Before you go to say I was just enlisted, keep in mind the enlisted are the ones getting inspected and doing all the work. The NBC officers just got the credit. I never saw my NBC officer calibrating pocket dosimeters or IM-74's. (Or is that 174's, been a while). If you survive the initial blast what you do after that is the biggest factor in surviving a nuke strike. The most important thing you can know is wind direction. I'd start a thread on this if enough people were interested. We've enough military on this site to back up my claims.

Almost died until I saw the sarcasm part there Arch.

Your right about his post though. People like him are what makes the left feel the way they do about me and the right. Time to open up that old can...........

 

[teacher]

...............of whup ass.

Why did manifest destiny have to stop at the Pacific??? The more countries you invade & occupy, the more natural resources you gain, the more money you gain, etc, etc, etc....Why is it that the most powerful country on Earth has to look to the ****-ant countries for acceptance? They don't like us, too bad, we control 75% of the world's nukes....test us.

I vote Republican and I can say you are what the left calls a Nazi. Your post is thouroughly without thought or compassion.

I totally disagree with you. I think that if Bushy were able to do his job without all of the bleeding heart liberals whining in all directions, this war would have been over years ago....

How have the libs stood in the way of the Generals desisions?

He would have just bombed the crap out of them from the git-go, not caring who he hit, and looking back, I think that would have been a great strategy.

Then you would have REALY seen terrorism. And they would be justified.

If no one was on our side to begin with, we wouldn't have had to care about ******* anyone more off. Liberals and human rights activists are to blame for the ongoing war....

We have the Presidancy and congress. Th libs haven't been able to do anything about the prosecution of this war. The worst they can do is post rhetoric on sites like this. And then we debate it.

.....we have free pass for about 3000 civilians that we can kill.

Your a sick fuc*king bastar*d. For all the gains I can make on a site like this you destroy it all. Thanks a lot Nazi.

 

[stsburns]

10,455 out of 20,168 doesn't Equal 75% of the Worlds Nukes.

You must be suicidal. If we shoot a nuclear weapon we break all of the Nuke Treaties, therefore everyone else will launch their weapons at us causing Nuclear Winter and the end of the human race as we know it.

It helps to know a problem before you speak on it. The Nuclear Treaties were esstablished after WWII to control how many a country could produce! Their is this ENTERTIANMENT thoery that who ever the president is can hit some "Magic button" and the world will be abliterated, now I have yet to see it proven true, But are you refering to that?

You honestly don't want the world to live by "An eye for an eye" we'd no long exist, don't forget we did commit genocide on the Native Americans. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see American Soldiers being harrassed and abused by the terroist, just like we did at Abu (/end sarcasm).

There is no interogation when they drive into you and explode is there? Interogation commence! EXPLOSION!

What War would have been over years ago? The Invasion of Iraq was swift and no Liberals stood in his way, in-fact they couldn't do anything about it. Oh if you're talking about your precious little "War on Terror" then I'm sorry to inform you that it cannot be won.

I see you have read the book on "War Made Easy!" Now tell me General Arch Enemy, how many years should it have last? I'll give you 3 gold stars for an answer! Or should I strip rank, decisions, decisions!

You're post was utterly null of any point. At the time of our expansion 99% of all civilized nations would have kicked the living crap out of us. The only reason why England didn't return to dismantle us was because they had war debts to pay, not to mention they got a better deal with giving us our freedom then them actually owning us.

Arch you say that we are expanding, then you mention Englend could take us over, but I refer to your own post, WHO WOULD GO UP AGAINST A COUNTRY WITH 50% OF THE WORLDS NUCLEAR ARMS! Countries are welcome, but I don't think they would do it! The last time a COUNTRY attacked us was Pearl Harbor attack! :mrgreen:

 

[nkgupta80]

yeah thing is no country will attack any other country that has nukes. War on terror is an ideological war. Is is basically a war on a type of international crime. Its a very idealistic war. And on top of that, we're basically trying to weed out this ideology by using the very policies these criminals hate. I always thought that the conservatives were the rational ones, and the liberals were for the most part the idealists, but I guess stereotypes aren't always correct.

 

[stsburns]

yeah thing is no country will attack any other country that has nukes. War on terror is an ideological war. Is is basically a war on a type of international crime. Its a very idealistic war. And on top of that, we're basically trying to weed out this ideology by using the very policies these criminals hate. I always thought that the conservatives were the rational ones, and the liberals were for the most part the idealists, but I guess stereotypes aren't always correct.

Tell me what Idea we are speading! :2wave:

 

[Mancunian]

Why did manifest destiny have to stop at the Pacific??? The more countries you invade & occupy, the more natural resources you gain, the more money you gain, etc, etc, etc....Why is it that the most powerful country on Earth has to look to the ****-ant countries for acceptance? They don't like us, too bad, we control 75% of the world's nukes....test us.
I totally disagree with you. I think that if Bushy were able to do his job without all of the bleeding heart liberals whining in all directions, this war would have been over years ago....He would have just bombed the crap out of them from the git-go, not caring who he hit, and looking back, I think that would have been a great strategy. If no one was on our side to begin with, we wouldn't have had to care about ******* anyone more off. Liberals and human rights activists are to blame for the ongoing war....you hear it on the news every day about how some "innocent" person was killed.....FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS & YOU WON"T BE KILLED! And as for human rights, what about the human rights of those n the WTC, Pentagon, & PA. on Sept. 11th, Moo-hamad didn't seem to take those into consideration. (I'm not saying that ALL Muslims are bad, but as we can see from the ongoing war, it's sure hard to weed out the sane ones.) Put it in to their terms...Hamurabi's code...an eye for an eye.....we have free pass for about 3000 civilians that we can kill.

This post is diabolical.

What would be that point of bombing the crap out of them without caring what you hit? With no population for the new democratic government of Iraq to rule over, what would happen? ILikeDubya's Aryan race to rule the world?

 

[Pacridge]

This post is diabolical.

What would be that point of bombing the crap out of them without caring what you hit? With no population for the new democratic government of Iraq to rule over, what would happen? ILikeDubya's Aryan race to rule the world?

Welcome to debate politics.

I agree this post is really insulting.

I also like your signature line. I like a lot of Churchill quotes. But this is one of my favorites.


Lady Astor: "Winston, if I were your wife I'd put poison in your coffee."
Winston Churchill: "Nancy, if I were your husband I'd drink it."

I also like :

If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.

And:

I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't have to play by any rules if other countries or entities don't. I also firmly b elieve the adage, "We're not even until I'm one up." And yes, America only controls 50 % of the nukes....that they allow the world to know about. Also, when You're talking SIZE of nukes in megatons, QUANTITIES don't count.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't have to play by any rules if other countries or entities don't. I also firmly b elieve the adage, "We're not even until I'm one up." And yes, America only controls 50 % of the nukes....that they allow the world to know about. Also, when You're talking SIZE of nukes in megatons, QUANTITIES don't count.

I am of the notion that because others do not follow our moral standards and rules it is important that we do.

This old adage you speak of incites retalliation. An endless cycle of people trying to be your definition of "even."

When it comes to nukes, one way or another we have the ability to destroy the world several times over. That's not necessary.

 

[C.J.]

I am of the notion that because others do not follow our moral standards and rules it is important that we do.

I agree with you on this, but I am curious as to why you would believe this to be true between countries, but not between individuals.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

I'm all for morals & standards, but not in situations such as these. Folowing rules and protocal is what made us lose in Vietnam...Luckily, that was a war that America could afford to lose...This war is one that cannot be lost. The longer it goes on, with no major advances, the more time it gives the enemy to prepare for and carry out what ever it is that they are up to. If we were to drop the show for the media and critica, and just get on with having a real no-holds-bar war, the sooner we could wipe out the enemy, hopefully before they're able to cause any more damage.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

An afterthought, it was unconventional and guerilla warfare that enabled the colonists to defeat the British in the revolutionary war....As the British were all lining up in their pretty little rows to all fire at the same time, we surprised them from behind & the sides & let them have it....By not following the rules the British thought we would, we gained the upper hand & pushed them back to their tiny little island.

 

[Alex]

Who are you Ann Coulter???

Not that I mind... I happen to like her. I like Coulter's solution to winning the War on Terror: make all Muslims Christians... without Islam, whos there around to be Islamic extremists???

Great idea, make all Muslims into Christians. Then we will have won the war on terror but lost the war on child molesters. Ann Coulter only talks to hear herself speak, just like other animals.

 

[ILikeDubyah]

Great idea, make all Muslims into Christians. Then we will have won the war on terror but lost the war on child molesters. Ann Coulter only talks to hear herself speak, just like other animals.


Wow, that was the dumbest thing I've ever read! So you're saying to be a Christian you have to be a child molester, or to be a child molester, you have to be Christian? Enlighten me, please!