becuase his fuck up in Iraq has sold him on the importance of diplomacy

too bad it took an entire war to teach him that

8/4/2006 8:07:52 PM

And how many dead Americans and Iraqi civilians?

8/4/2006 8:08:41 PM

bush said 30,000 iraqi civilians

the real number is probably over 100,000

8/4/2006 8:12:08 PM

Not to mention a few hundred billion dollars.

8/4/2006 8:25:21 PM

That's it! He has my vote as THE greatest president evAr! Founding Fathers be damned.

8/4/2006 8:57:19 PM

first, i am active duty military... but lets not assume anything, please. i support the war in iraq. i dont think you can support the troops without supporting their mission. i have no issues with us being there. however, it would have been nice to have a real, legitimate reason up front, instead of being fed a lie. there is and was legitimate reason to go in to iraq... but they werent presented up front i believe, because it would not have garnered enough popular support. either way, he made a choice, ultimately the right one, in spite of the lies up front. i disagree with his push for 'intelligent design' in public schools. i am pro choice and pro gun control... however i do feel fine with the general population carrying fire arms, so im not die hard gun control. so i have mixed feelings about him as a president. he is so so in normal times... but considering we are in one of the tougher times, at least in recent history, his resolve is something to be admired... something we need.

8/8/2006 2:44:11 PM

i still say 50 years down the road, the history books will paint bush as a strong leader who took a stand against terrorism and helped make the world a safer place

i dont think 50 years down the road the books will say he's a bumbling idiot who waged a fake war for oil money

8/8/2006 2:46:33 PM

Quote :

"screwing up Iraq."

yet to be determined really, but go ahead and attempt predictive history, works realllly well...

8/8/2006 2:51:17 PM

i still say 50 years down the road, the history books will paint bushLBJ as a strong leader who took a stand against terrorismCommunism and helped make the world a safer place

8/8/2006 2:55:00 PM

you can make your LBJ thread when he's been out of office in other dozen years when that 50 years has passed

8/8/2006 2:57:56 PM

of course youre going to have US history books say that each president took a stand against something and was noble in his efforts. if they painted a tragic picture of the political landscape, at the time, would any of us be proud to be americans? what would be the point in caring about your home if it didnt stand for anything? do you not think that george washington did some dumb things and made mistakes? but if you had half of the population hating george washington, what he did and his reasons... what would those people believe in when it came to a sense of identity for this nation?

8/8/2006 3:06:12 PM

my point is that big events are what get remembered over time

not this week's local political opinions on a news channel

8/8/2006 3:09:08 PM

so what should be remembered about the past 8 years?

8/8/2006 3:16:50 PM

Social Security
Iraq
Cutting spending
North Korea
Iran
Israel
Energy independence
Federal response to Katrina
MARS, BITCH

8/8/2006 3:20:04 PM

my bad.... how should the past 8 years be remembered... including those topics, and potentially more.

8/8/2006 3:21:00 PM

from this point?

all of the doomsday folks from around the world in 1999 that had to eat their words...

8/8/2006 3:23:44 PM

Perhaps the only president with the balls to fix social security had his attempts foiled by nitpicking on Capitol Hill and an inability to make any commitment to anything because of the constantly upcomming elections.

I just wish I could opt out of that fucking fiasco we call social security. Its the worst U.S. idea since giving smallpox to the Indians.

8/8/2006 3:30:39 PM

are you on any boards about social security? i dont want to diverge into that on this one?

8/8/2006 3:34:09 PM

There are millions about that kind of shit on here. The reason I bring it up is that I thought Bush's legacy (in the long term) would be about fixing SS, but that was squelched.

8/8/2006 3:36:44 PM

out of context... he is an average president. within the context of the global war on terror... he has done very well.

8/8/2006 4:01:02 PM

Out of context he's a cronic fuck-up who's only gotten where he is because he's a member of the Lucky Sperm Club.

In the context of international strife, having a monkey at the wheel is even worse.

8/8/2006 4:11:31 PM

all the cool people hate bush! lets hate him!

8/8/2006 4:22:13 PM

All the people who like Bush, let's not give any convincing reasons! Weeeee!

8/8/2006 4:23:28 PM

Lucky Sperm Club...no Kennedy's or Kerry's in there...elite

8/8/2006 4:29:19 PM

where are your convincing reasons for hating him? "oh, he started an unjust war, boo hoo"

you just believe its unjust because of the media spin

^dont mention that...he'll ignore it

8/8/2006 4:29:37 PM

The Kennedies (most of them, rather) proved themselves worthy to lead.

Kerry at least accomplished more on his own than Bush. I'm not a huge fan of his, but his familial ties didn't hold his hand through life. After an awesome education provided by his family, he accomplished crap on his own.

8/8/2006 4:46:19 PM

i like (loosely used) bush because in the face of adversity he made a decision. i never was, and still am not, confident either of his two opponents in the elections could or would have done the same thing. not make the same decision, but make A DECISION. the one defense decision clinton made was in 93, and he turned tail on that as soon as there was public fallout. and that wasnt even a defense decision. i dont think kerry, ted kennedy or al gore would have made a decision to prevent 9/11 from happening again... they decision i think they would have made is to stick their heads in the sand and wait for it to happen again as soon as it possibly can... because its not popular to medle in the affairs of other nations. sadly, its inevitable. if you think getting out of iraq is going to make them suddenly not want to bomb us, youre mistaken. if you think that never going in there in the first place would have prevented anything, youre mistaken. the immediate dividends of withdrawl would be vastly overshadowed by the costs later down the road. this is evident in history. regardless of his reasons, bush made a decision... and i feel its the right one.

8/8/2006 5:12:12 PM

Quote :

"The Kennedies (most of them, rather) proved themselves worthy to lead. "

haha..you have got to be kidding me. If Bush is only where he is today because of his father then so is every single kennedy.

8/8/2006 5:14:57 PM

dont forget...

BUSH WAS RIGHT!

http://www.rightmarch.com/media/BushWasRight-ad.pdf

8/9/2006 2:38:09 PM

Quote :

"bush said 30,000 iraqi civilians the real number is probably over 100,000"

hey look! I can make shit up too! ALl I have to do is use a number and precede it with 'probably' and people will think it's totally true. LOL!

8/9/2006 2:46:41 PM

FYI, the "confirmed" number is over 40,000.

the "actual" number is always more than the confirmed number, since to be "confirmed" has a higher burden of proof than can often be provided in a war. the actual number is likely above 50,000 and could even be as high 100,000.

but since bush says it's only 30,000, then thats makes it all okay with you, right?

8/9/2006 3:17:53 PM

when did bush say it was 30,000? im asking seriously because i dont know

but if it was like a year ago he may have been right

8/9/2006 3:24:04 PM

Quote :

"One woman asked how many Iraqis had been killed in the war. "I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said. "We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.""

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/12/bush.iraq/index.html

hey I can use google

8/9/2006 3:37:42 PM

so he said this over 8 months ago

which means he obviously didnt include any casualties in the last 8 months...

8/9/2006 3:44:15 PM

Quote :

"Kerry at least accomplished more on his own than Bush. I'm not a huge fan of his, but his familial ties didn't hold his hand through life. After an awesome education provided by his family, he accomplished crap on his own."

You mean, boy wonder who spent the summers Yachting with the Kennedy's and whose father was a powerful US Senator provided more for himself than GW?

You mean, like marrying a billionaire?

At least give Bush his credit. He made $Texas (literally) as a businessman. He may have gotten off to a head start by being elite, but Kerry shared as blue a blood as GWB his whole life.

8/9/2006 4:18:18 PM

Quote :

"Give Bush his credit. He made $Texas (literally) as a businessman. "

yeah, he's a real hardworking entreprenuer. first daddy gave him an oil company, then someone else gave him a pro-baseball team.

but i'd say he really got his business skills long before that, when he was dealing cocaine while being AWOL from the Texas National Guard.

that would have been roughly the same time Kerry was getting shot (3 times) in Vietnam.

8/9/2006 8:29:06 PM

are you insinuating that the number of iraqi deaths are the result of US military actions? the fact that iraqis are killing iraqis is indesputible and we ARE working at preventing that.

8/9/2006 10:13:40 PM

Quote :

"are you insinuating that the number of iraqi deaths are the result of US military actions? "

theres no insinuation about it.

30000/50000/100000 what the fuck ever thousand you wanna call it... *thousands* of innocent Iraqi women and children have been and are being killed needlessly ever since we invaded their country and broke their infrastructure. as an occupying force, we are abso fucking lutely pathetic. Rumsfeld is a goddamned war criminal and needs to be brought up on domestic and intenational charges. and he's not the only one. but he's the starting point.

8/10/2006 12:52:25 AM

that assumes that the goal of rumsfeld and others is to destroy iraq as a nation. if that were the case, we would be conducting a campaign of an entirely different nature. why would you spend the time, resources and human losses to conduct an 'occupation' if youre goal from the start is to destroy the country and the people? we are ineffective as occupiers... because there is far too much beaurocracy involved in solving the problem. does it make sense to put a soldier on trial for shooting an iraqi who just shot an RPG at his convoy? this has happened. why does that happen? because the command is too afraid of the political fall out of having CNN report another iraqi civilian casualty and then there will be investigations as to why the civilian was shot and to cover his ass, the commander puts the soldier on trial. who determines if the person was a civilian or a soldier? the media? where do they get that from, us military sources or from the local populace? if that guy sold shoes in a village, and the media gets their information from iraqi officials who get their info from local villagers who think that the man was shot was a good person who didnt deserve to die (because he sold shoes at a good price)... where is the truth? he shot an rpg at american troops... maybe he did it cuz he just doesnt like americans being in his country and wouldnt do it again if given the choice... but he did it... should we not shoot back? is that convoy supposed to just roll along and ignore it because people back home will not like to hear about an iraqi death?

8/10/2006 9:22:50 AM

Quote :

"maybe he did it cuz he just doesnt like americans being in his country"

maybe he did

8/10/2006 9:24:58 AM

so does he get a free pass in spite of the fact that he initiated the aggression in this case? which perspective do you take... he was an innocent man who shot at americans, therefore is a civilian? or is he a combatant who died? should we pull out of iraq because people are dying? what would you propose?

8/10/2006 9:28:18 AM

hes a combatant who died.

we should leave iraq becuase

1. our goals are impossible to accomplish
2. iraqis are dying, we're not controlling anything
3. we're inflaming the middle east, resulting in more attacks on the west

8/10/2006 9:31:16 AM

we arent allowed to do what is necessary to accomplish our goals. you have commanders of units, 5000+ troops, who DO NOT conduct combat patrols in/around their areas of responsibility because they are afraid that their troops may die or may kill someone... why are they afraid of this? because it will show up on TV and will only add to the political fall out that exists from deaths during combat. he could lose his job if troops die. so, he doesnt put them in harms way. this allows the insurgency to thrive in the area, because of people that dont want to see troops die. im not saying people should die, but it is a possibility and a reality of combat. and an overwhelming majority of troops on the ground UNDERSTAND that. if we lose this conflict, its because it is unpopular... not because the military is unable to do it.

8/10/2006 9:41:51 AM

Its unpopular AND the military is incapable of doing it.

8/10/2006 9:55:19 AM

^^ exactly. you are basically saying there is plenty for the military to do, but our policy wont have it, becuase like in vietnam, we'll end up knee-deep in insurgent 6 months after we kill all the ones we know of right now.

its a quagmire. there is no way to victory. let them have there shit hole. we got rid of a crazy douchebag, so we cannot say its a loss. its just not a win.

8/10/2006 9:57:47 AM

joder do you realize that you just gave a reason why the military cant win?

im guessing you dont

[Edited on August 10, 2006 at 10:15 AM. Reason : though i think its other reasons ]

8/10/2006 10:12:04 AM

i believe the military is capable. having been there and having seen the changes take place over two years, i am certain that it is possible. however, policy makers, who are answering the public cry to stop, are making it impossible. we arent allowed to stop the ones making the problems because it might cost us something and that cost might show up on TV and cause a demonstration somewhere and cause some senator to lose his job. so he starts a rally to stop us from taking losses. how do you do that? well, you dont fight at all. but he says he wants to help the region, that we can help... so we sit in iraq on our thumbs and just allow it to deteriorate. the situation gets worse, but at least we arent losing 4 soldiers a week. to me, that is not a good trade off... and that is the resounding feeling of our active duty troops deployed in the region... i promise you that. it sucks there, we hate being there. but we accept that we are there and we want to make a change at all costs. no one WANTS to be at war, but the fact is we are... so we want to do it right. the notion that a majority of troops in iraq and afghanistan are against the war is false. you would have fewer complaints from troops if you shut off the TV cameras, pulled the politicians out of the way and just let the military handle the situation. if you dont have the faith in your governments military leaders to conduct a just, fair and legal as possible war... then whats the point of having one? i would also like to say that i am in no way irritated by this debate and hope that it never digresses into petty personal attacks on how stupid one person may be. regardless of how much you may disagree with my opinion, i still respect it as long as you are well spoken enough about it.

8/10/2006 2:36:16 PM

reporters arent leaving, so you just said it was impossible

8/10/2006 2:40:09 PM

Its not impossible, its improbable.

Impossible would mean there's no feasible way for the military to end the insurgency in Iraq.

They can, and could, but it would mean commitments neither party is willing to make.

I think thats J's point.

8/10/2006 2:51:11 PM

the way it would be perceived as a loss is that the actual terrorists we are fighting (not to be confused with insurgents) are going to spin it that way. the problem is that the propoganda videos they produce... actually work. if you are going to thwart terrorism at all, you are going to be fighting it forever. so you cant pull back and say 'well, we did what we could'. there will be casualties... on all sides. but if the 90s showed us anything about it, its that ignoring it or shooting a few cruise missles when it comes around does not prevent it at all. of course we cant COMPLETELY prevent it, today shows us that... but i would rather make an effort at it first than sit back, wait for it to happen and THEN do something about it. i realize that our intentions when we first went in are sketchy at best. but it is almost a moot point. the fact is we are there, it has become a hot bed for genuine terrorists and a rallying cry for those not in iraq. to give up now, cut our losses and go home would not be beneficial in the long run. the goal is the long run.

8/10/2006 3:07:34 PM