The George W. Bush Thread

Originally posted by onejayhawk

Over the course of 8 years Saddam was able to throw out the weapons inspectors and alQueda built itself into the organization that was able to carry out the 9/11 attack.

Are you brainwashed? If you continue to mention Al-queda and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence over and over again, no doubt I will even believe it. There is not any connection between the former dictator and the terrorist mastermind.
 
Originally posted by Benderino


Right. They're whole platform is bent on world domination using many key outposts and stations strategically positioned across the globe. It's really scary stuff. I'm not making this up.

EDIT: Wow, that really makes me sound crazy. Ah well.
Well, I have gone through their website and their positions...so I will not be one person to say "Well, they just suck" without having even looked at it. I wouldn't say world domination....but rather...they want the US to straddle the globe and it would perhaps help if the other nations just defer to the US for everything. In short, a greater foreign presence of American firepower than what is even currently in place. What was the term...."American hegemony"? I think that is the classification. I don't like it. Just pisses off too many people.
 
Originally posted by Benderino


The "New American Century" guys can hardly be called unbiased. PNAC is controlled by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. I wouldn't trust that site.

Actually it's nothing wrong with the articel per say(the entire, not the summery), as I said in my response to ArbitraryGuy said.
 
As for the Clinton's fault and Bush' fault issue...

One guy had a blow job and there was a national crisis.

The other guy starts a war under false pretenses, several hundred American soldiers die, several thousand get maimed, over ten thousand Iraqi civilians die... and there is no national crisis at all!

One lie that has no consequences (besides the lying itself), the other lie kills fifteen thousand and the political landscape just accepts it...
 
Originally posted by wlievens
As for the Clinton's fault and Bush' fault issue...

One guy had a blow job and there was a national crisis.

The other guy starts a war under false pretenses, several hundred American soldiers die, several thousand get maimed, over ten thousand Iraqi civilians die... and there is no national crisis at all!

One lie that has no consequences (besides the lying itself), the other lie kills fifteen thousand and the political landscape just accepts it...

Ahh, I see you are not from the U.S........
Bush has caught more criticsm for his foreign policy and from foreigners, while Clinton rose quite a stir domeesctiaclley and was dis-regarded abroad.
 
luiz: have you learned nothing from the Political Compass????
 
While speaking of Clinton and his terrorism policy, I find it interesting that the foreign "dignitary" that visited the White House more often than any other during Clinton's two terms was Yassar Arafat, a man who explicitly supports the Fatwa, Hamas, et al. Say what you will about the faults of Israel, but nothing justifies walking into a coffee house with a bomb covered with rusty nails and setting it off.
 
Originally posted by wildWolverine
While speaking of Clinton and his terrorism policy, I find it interesting that the foreign "dignitary" that visited the White House more often than any other during Clinton's two terms was Yassar Arafat, a man who explicitly supports the Fatwa, Hamas, et al. Say what you will about the faults of Israel, but nothing justifies walking into a coffee house with a bomb covered with rusty nails and setting it off.

It's true, but before the 2nd Intifadah, Arafat was seen by all as the man with whom to negotiate. Peace has to be made in the Middle East, and both sides must be brought to the table. Now, he has been discredited, but back then, he was seen as a necessary evil.
 
Originally posted by Marla_Singer
I hear nothing, I see nothing, I say nothing.

twm1111.jpg


- Don Rumsfeld never mentionned any "Old Europe".
- Condie Rice never said that sentence : "Punish France, Ignore Germany, Forgive Russia"
- Restaurants in the White House, House of Parliament and Congress never renamed "French Fries" as "Freedom Fries".

I'm hating the US so viscerally that I'm hearing imaginary voices I guess. :rolleyes:

I love Marla's style:love: ;)
 
I love Marla's style

Yeah... Just ignore the stuff you don't wanna answer.. maybe it'll go away...
 
Originally posted by Speedo


Yeah... Just ignore the stuff you don't wanna answer.. maybe it'll go away...

What? i dont get your point, she look to me as a powerfull kung-fu master debater. Dont try to poison our common point of view, jealous.:p
 
I'm still waiting to hear where she got "Bush will be re-elected because Americans want France to be punished" from.
 
Originally posted by Speedo
I'm still waiting to hear where she got "Bush will be re-elected because Americans want France to be punished" from.

It was a little bit of exageration, but i dont care , my general appreciation of her doesnt change.
 
Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
Are you brainwashed? If you continue to mention Al-queda and Saddam Hussein in the same sentence over and over again, no doubt I will even believe it. There is not any connection between the former dictator and the terrorist mastermind.
Yes there was. The direct connections are slight, but they are both clearly part of a larger fabric. To say they are distinct is to say that Disney is completely seperate from General Motors. You can even plausibly argue it it, but its not true.

J
 
The connection is so tenuous as to invite ridicule, and the reason why referring to it excites a response is that this 'connection' was massively over-hyped in a deliberate attmept to confuse public opinion and derive support for the war against Iraq.

I can understtand people being in favour of the war aganist iraq and proud of the work carried out by the armed forces, I can't understand anyone of ANY political persuasion being happy with being lied to or deliberately misled over such a serious issue.

I mean, I'm a centrist who would normally be an obvious pick for a Blair supporter, but I despise him for doing this and will never trust him in the future. It's not about political persuasion, I just do not want to be deliberately misled by my leaders on substantive issues.
 
Originally posted by bigfatron
The connection is so tenuous as to invite ridicule, and the reason why referring to it excites a response is that this 'connection' was massively over-hyped in a deliberate attmept to confuse public opinion and derive support for the war against Iraq.

I can understtand people being in favour of the war aganist iraq and proud of the work carried out by the armed forces, I can't understand anyone of ANY political persuasion being happy with being lied to or deliberately misled over such a serious issue.

I mean, I'm a centrist who would normally be an obvious pick for a Blair supporter, but I despise him for doing this and will never trust him in the future. It's not about political persuasion, I just do not want to be deliberately misled by my leaders on substantive issues.
I suppose that is a defensible position, but I dont buy it.

First off the connection isnt all that tenuous. Granting free passage to terrorists is well established, and not trivial. Large amounts of oil going to Syria is well established, and not trivial. There is no evidence that Saddam funded al Qaeda, but that does not make him unsympathetic to their objectives, and the passage of people through Iraq may be the tip of an iceberg. Even if its a matter of your enemies finding common cause in their enmity, then there is a connection.

Besides, the point I was making, and DDD was abusing, is that under the Clinton administration it became easier to be openly hostile to the west, and the US in particular. Perhaps if I had stated it in so many words, it would have played better.

J
 
Yes there was. The direct connections are slight, but they are both clearly part of a larger fabric. To say they are distinct is to say that Disney is completely seperate from General Motors. You can even plausibly argue it it, but its not true.

Scuse me J, but I have to call you on that one ;)

The definition of terrorism has stretched to "terrorising his people", "neighbors", etc, which is clearly mission creep. You can't lump all of America's enemies together as "terrorists". Nor is America about to indulge itself in a nice little foreign policy game of Six Degrees of Separation.

Your comparison is totally apt. Disney and GM are not run by the same people. Nor do they market the same products. They don't compete for market share, do they? The fact that they share many customers is only a result of the fact that they are leaders in their respective fields. To jump from that to saying they are "cooperating" on any issue is pretty silly imho.

Let me put it this way: how has the defeat and capture of Saddam Hussein harmed Al Qaeda, our primary enemy?
 
To continue the analogy, Disney and GM hire the same college grad pool, borrow from the same banks, use the same accounting firms (or law, or advertising, or consulting, etc), deal with related unions. The roots of the companies cross each other. More to the point, the top level execs actually know each other, and exchange pleasantries. That's if they arent doing business together. But they are doing business together. GM is marketing its cars through Disney movies, for example. Superficially there are few points of contact, but under the surface they are part of the same fabric, which we call American Business. If Disney did an Enron and disappeared overnight, GM would feel it.

Saddam Hussien may not have trafficed in terrorism of the type a Qaeda endorses. It has not been demonstrated that he did not, but nothing solid points to it. None the less, they are tied into the same network of arms, explosives and munitions dealers, money handlers and funding sources. Moreover, Iraq was like a Free Parking in Monopoly. When you cannot afford to land on New York or Atlantic, that can be a real life saver. That's gone, and Syria, which was friendly is now less so.

I have spent years watching how news at one business impacts stock prices of others. If you try and trace it, it turns to smoke, but the effect is there. If nothing else, overthrowing Saddam put a bright light in a dark corner, so things can no longer go on unobserved. That is nontrivial in a war of this type. I suspect that there are many more aspects of the overthrow of Iraq that severed resources to al Qaeda and similar groups, but we will never know. Its like a body punch in boxing. you are making it hard for the opponent to breath, even though its almost never a knockout blow.

J
 
Poniuth Pilate, the war was waged, as is my understanding, upon the premise of Saddam Hussein developing WMDs and then handing these WMDs to terrorists (any terrorists) who would then use them against America, American interests and America's allies. Now admittedly it does not look like Saddam posessed WMDs or was likely to posess WMDs but the intelligence said he did. Really it comes down to two questions:
1) How much stock should be placed on the reliability of intelligence.
2) Whether or not Saddam should be allowed to develop WMDs.

Therefore the war in Iraq was not directly related to the war against Al Qaeda but it was essential, from Bush and Blair's point of view, to the wider war on terror.
 
Back
Top Bottom