I Aint No Bush Supporter But....

[KINGFROMQUEENS]

...I THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESRTING

1. There were 39 combat related killings in
Iraq during the month of January.....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35
murders during the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as
deadly as the entire war torn country
of Iraq.


2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the
following .

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany
never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one
in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy. ..started the Vietnam
conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an
average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or
French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.

3. In the two years since terrorists attacked
us:

President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without
firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his
own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police
after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.

 

[Spectrum]

I agree with everything that you are saying. The problem isn't Bush in and of himself...its the neoconversative mindstate...not their goals.but the way the go about attemping to achieve them. They have a very machiavellian mentality: the ends justify the means..i.e. you can do evil if the end result is good..you can manipulate if the end result extends the American dynasty...you can commit immoral actions for the sake of the moral causes. The idealogy is contradictory in nature. If you look at "New American Century" for instance..which alot of Bush's administration is apart of..their goals for America are praiseworthy and we as Americans should want those types of goals;however, the means they advocate (manipulating to justify a war in Iraq to get a stronghold in the middle east to fight terrorism and secure strategic oil reserves) are questionable..not the goal but the means are questionable.

When I was going to Washington before I went to Iraq..our delagation was meeting with Senator Biden(who is exceptionally intelligent btw) regularly and he was saying that there is a huge misconception that Bush is unintelligent. He said that isn't the case. He said the major problem is that Bush delegates and trusts his appointees too much. He doesn't question the integrity of their arguments and takes them at face value. Thus he supports his constituents with the idea that they actually plan to do what they say they will or that the information they are providing is factual..not considering that they could have their own alterior motives. This was from the mouth of one of the Senators who deals with him. We also heard this sentiment from several top level politicians in Washington.

 

[QueEx]

KFQ,

Its too easy to get the point of the article, but its a useless use of useless statistics. Turn them on their head, and they could support any proposition one wants them to support. I know, I've been redundant; redundantly using useless and support. But, LOL, thats what I think of the article: useless support.

QueEx

 

[KINGFROMQUEENS]

on the real though fam
2 many lives are being lost for other peoples agendas.

 

[Spectrum]

KFQ,

Its too easy to get the point of the article, but its a useless use of useless statistics. Turn them on their head, and they could support any proposition one wants them to support. I know, I've been redundant; redundantly using useless and support. But, LOL, thats what I think of the article: useless support.

QueEx

I disagree with you on this one QueEX. For instance, Presidents often get praised or criticized by the prosperity of lack there of during their presidency. For instance, Clinton was praised for the economic growth during his presidency. However, the stage was set well before he got into office and their is nothing that was done by him or his adminstration that contributed to the bull market during his presidency. The growth and the economic decisions or ones not made were mutually exclusive from the economy during his presidency. The reality is that policy takes several years to trickly down the system to the end user. The same way that implosion of the tech market and its effect on the rest of the economy had nothing to do with Bush. The irrational exubberance was created during Clinton's administration and the bubble was going to burst regardless of who was in office. The effects are usually because of the previous adminstration.

I say that to bring up those "useless points". Clinton dropped the ball on the Bid Laden scenario. He knew he was behind the repeated attacks. During this time we actually knew where he slept EVERY night and we had a government who was willing to hand him over to us. Since Clinton declined, he was shipped to Afghanistan..which couldn't have worked out better for Bin Laden because of the tribal system and the mountaneous cave networks. Clinton balked. This balking opened up the 9/11 possibility that the Bush administation had to deal with. Much like the economics...we are dealing with issue slike terrorism that could have been contained during Clinton's watch.

Also the reality is that while we have Al Queda running all over the globe. They can't plan attacks against us here in the states. They are on the defensive. This is very important strategically. It is the only reason we have not had more attacks. You can't plan offensives when you are being actively attacked on multiple fronts by a much more capable military unit. They can only deal with very local situations but the ability to attack us here in the states is much more daunting for their organization.

Also, in terms of the numbers of soldiers lost. Yes every loss is a problem. However..relatively in terms of loss of life..this war has been highly successful...especially when comparing it to our conflicts with huge body counts. The issue here was with post war implementation. This adminstration completely fumbled that. We could have very easily avoided alot of this anti American sentiment and the opposing forces wouldn't have so much support now. Remember I was there in Oct 2003...when the Iraqi were still happy we were there, but wondered why we hadn't had a more effective post war plan..i.e. how could you conquer us in a week and a year later we still don't have water and electricity. Then they began to feel like they were better off under Saddam and that is when the support for the oppositional forces pick up. They shit started all over I left Baghdad because it was much less "resistance" while I was there.

 

[rude_dog]

King, I know you ain't a Bush supporter but I'm sure that's some shit that came from some right wing nut. They tell these lies over and over. There are numerous inaccurancies in it and doesn't tell the whole truth.

They took one month out of year in Detroit and Iraq. Like you, I'm on the job here. The last 2 years, Detroit has had less than 750 murders. Iraq has had 2,000. I'm sure you realize that at least half of the victims in Detroit were doing something wrong.

Germany may have not bombed Pearl Harbor but they did declare war against the United States on December 11, 1941 before we did. Someone declares war on you, you better be ready to fight back. They had also sunk merchant ships that were flying the U.S. flag.

I won't comment on Vietnam, I don't agree with it but there were plenty of Republicans who supported that war. In fact, Nixon increased involvement there.

Bosnia was not a UN action, it was NATO who requested US help. In fact, England, Italy and several other NATO countries were there at least a year before American got involved. In fact, we were requested by at least one of the fractions to intervine. To paraphrase Republicans, "when does France decide when America goes to war."

The Sudan never offered Osama to Clinton. That's a lie that the GOP keeps repeating because they know their base will never take the time to read the truth. The Sudan offered to deport Osama back to Saudia Arabia, not to the United States. The Saudi's fearing an uprising, declined their offer.

 

[Spectrum]

King, I know you ain't a Bush supporter but I'm sure that's some shit that came from some right wing nut. They tell these lies over and over. There are numerous inaccurancies in it and doesn't tell the whole truth.

They took one month out of year in Detroit and Iraq. Like you, I'm on the job here. The last 2 years, Detroit has had less than 750 murders. Iraq has had 2,000. I'm sure you realize that at least half of the victims in Detroit were doing something wrong.

Germany may have not bombed Pearl Harbor but they did declare war against the United States on December 11, 1941 before we did. Someone declares war on you, you better be ready to fight back. They had also sunk merchant ships that were flying the U.S. flag.

I won't comment on Vietnam, I don't agree with it but there were plenty of Republicans who supported that war. In fact, Nixon increased involvement there.

Bosnia was not a UN action, it was NATO who requested US help. In fact, England, Italy and several other NATO countries were there at least a year before American got involved. In fact, we were requested by at least one of the fractions to intervine. To paraphrase Republicans, "when does France decide when America goes to war."

The Sudan never offered Osama to Clinton. That's a lie that the GOP keeps repeating because they know their base will never take the time to read the truth. The Sudan offered to deport Osama back to Saudia Arabia, not to the United States. The Saudi's fearing an uprising, declined their offer.

Rude dog,

That was one of the options. They offered to arrest Bid Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia. However the Clinton adminstation balked on this offer:

"Secondly, when challenged as to why the Clinton Administration passed up
on the offer of bin Laden's extradition, Samuel Berger stated: "In the
United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring
him here is to bring him into the justice system. I don't think that was
our first choice.""

They clearly were given the offer. This was no lie..there were several books written about this sitution. Clinton took the weak route later and sent some scud missiles and never effectively dealt with the fact than an organization declared war on us and we attacking us. There were a series of attacks around the world on U.S. entities by Bid Ladin and Clinton effectively did nothing.

 

[rude_dog]

Yeah, those books are written by Ayn Rand followers. I would like to know where that quote came from and in what content because the Clinton was trying to get the Saudi's to assasinate Osama. Clinton also took the unprecendent step of attempting to contract the assasination of Bin Laden out at least twice while he was in Afghanistan.

Osama was deported from the Sudan in 1996, prior to attacks on Khobar Tower, African Embassies, and the USS Cole.

Look, I'm not trying to clear Clinton of all blame associated with 9/11, he definitely has to take some of the blame. But what we have found from people like Richard Clarke and Robert Baer among others is that Clinton tried to do something about Al Queda. It wasn't enough. It wan't nearly enough. BUT BUSH DID NOTHING!!!

 

[QueEx]

I disagree with you on this one QueEX. For instance, Presidents often get praised or criticized by the prosperity of lack there of during their presidency. For instance, Clinton was praised for the economic growth during his presidency. However, the stage was set well before he got into office and their is nothing that was done by him or his adminstration that contributed to the bull market during his presidency. The growth and the economic decisions or ones not made were mutually exclusive from the economy during his presidency. The reality is that policy takes several years to trickly down the system to the end user. The same way that implosion of the tech market and its effect on the rest of the economy had nothing to do with Bush. The irrational exubberance was created during Clinton's administration and the bubble was going to burst regardless of who was in office. The effects are usually because of the previous adminstration.

I say that to bring up those "useless points". Clinton dropped the ball on the Bid Laden scenario. He knew he was behind the repeated attacks. During this time we actually knew where he slept EVERY night and we had a government who was willing to hand him over to us. Since Clinton declined, he was shipped to Afghanistan..which couldn't have worked out better for Bin Laden because of the tribal system and the mountaneous cave networks. Clinton balked. This balking opened up the 9/11 possibility that the Bush administation had to deal with. Much like the economics...we are dealing with issue slike terrorism that could have been contained during Clinton's watch.

Also the reality is that while we have Al Queda running all over the globe. They can't plan attacks against us here in the states. They are on the defensive. This is very important strategically. It is the only reason we have not had more attacks. You can't plan offensives when you are being actively attacked on multiple fronts by a much more capable military unit. They can only deal with very local situations but the ability to attack us here in the states is much more daunting for their organization.

Also, in terms of the numbers of soldiers lost. Yes every loss is a problem. However..relatively in terms of loss of life..this war has been highly successful...especially when comparing it to our conflicts with huge body counts. The issue here was with post war implementation. This adminstration completely fumbled that. We could have very easily avoided alot of this anti American sentiment and the opposing forces wouldn't have so much support now. Remember I was there in Oct 2003...when the Iraqi were still happy we were there, but wondered why we hadn't had a more effective post war plan..i.e. how could you conquer us in a week and a year later we still don't have water and electricity. Then they began to feel like they were better off under Saddam and that is when the support for the oppositional forces pick up. They shit started all over I left Baghdad because it was much less "resistance" while I was there.

Don't worry about disagreeing, thats healthy. We may not disagree in the end or we may respectfully disagree without being disagreeable.

As I read the article (statement or whatever), its purpose is clearly to support Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That it does that, in my opinion, is of no moment -- it is the misleading use of meaningless stats that is the problem.

I don't think I need to pick apart each of the statements, but we know war comes for many reasons and whether we were directly attacked is not the whole answer -- for if there is a real and present threat, one need not wait to preempt it.

You will note that the article notes that neither Germany, North Korea, Vietnam or Bosnia attack us -- but we attacked them, THEREFORE,, we are justified in invading Iraq because we were attacked by Al Qaeda and in the process continued the process by going into Iraq ... blah blah, blah ... and handle North Korea etc., in the process. Simply put, my point is that why we attacked any country has to be judged based on the FACTS and circumstances at that time, Iraq included. What this article says is if they (dems or whoever) attacked the named countries and lost as many lives as was lost -- how can you blame GW for invading Iraq (because it was provoked) and we have lost far fewer lives at this point.

NONE of that idiocy is predicated on the particular facts of the particular military involvement. It may be that intervention cannot be justified in any of the cases, including Iraq, but the comparisons based on whether or not we were attacked as suggested in the article is an emotional appeal and just plain useless.

QueEx

 

[Spectrum]

Yeah, those books are written by Ayn Rand followers. I would like to know where that quote came from and in what content because the Clinton was trying to get the Saudi's to assasinate Osama. Clinton also took the unprecendent step of attempting to contract the assasination of Bin Laden out at least twice while he was in Afghanistan.

Osama was deported from the Sudan in 1996, prior to attacks on Khobar Tower, African Embassies, and the USS Cole.

Look, I'm not trying to clear Clinton of all blame associated with 9/11, he definitely has to take some of the blame. But what we have found from people like Richard Clarke and Robert Baer among others is that Clinton tried to do something about Al Queda. It wasn't enough. It wan't nearly enough. BUT BUSH DID NOTHING!!!

Don't quite get how the Ayn Rand snub has anything to do with the authors of the several different books with multiple political allegiances from different countries about Clinton's obvious Bin Laden mishaps?

I'll try to find the quote again.it was from a Sudanese site...here it is:http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml

Note that even Clinton has always said that this was his biggest mistake. I believe he even stated this in his book with his own words.

From what I've read...and not materials from people who had an anti-Clinton sentiment..was that Clinton took a very standoffish mentality with the terror networks when he should have been very aggressive and could have prevented future conflicts. But much like anyone...we are usually reactive instead of proactive.

 

[QueEx]

on the real though fam
2 many lives are being lost for other peoples agendas.

KFQ,

I agree with you -- I just don't think the article you posted is agreeing with you. LOL

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

King, I know you ain't a Bush supporter but I'm sure that's some shit that came from some right wing nut. They tell these lies over and over. There are numerous inaccurancies in it and doesn't tell the whole truth.

QueEx

 

[KINGFROMQUEENS]

King, I know you ain't a Bush supporter but I'm sure that's some shit that came from some right wing nut. They tell these lies over and over. There are numerous inaccurancies in it and doesn't tell the whole truth.

They took one month out of year in Detroit and Iraq. Like you, I'm on the job here. The last 2 years, Detroit has had less than 750 murders. Iraq has had 2,000. I'm sure you realize that at least half of the victims in Detroit were doing something wrong.

Germany may have not bombed Pearl Harbor but they did declare war against the United States on December 11, 1941 before we did. Someone declares war on you, you better be ready to fight back. They had also sunk merchant ships that were flying the U.S. flag.

I won't comment on Vietnam, I don't agree with it but there were plenty of Republicans who supported that war. In fact, Nixon increased involvement there.

Bosnia was not a UN action, it was NATO who requested US help. In fact, England, Italy and several other NATO countries were there at least a year before American got involved. In fact, we were requested by at least one of the fractions to intervine. To paraphrase Republicans, "when does France decide when America goes to war."

The Sudan never offered Osama to Clinton. That's a lie that the GOP keeps repeating because they know their base will never take the time to read the truth. The Sudan offered to deport Osama back to Saudia Arabia, not to the United States. The Saudi's fearing an uprising, declined their offer.

i feel you fam.everyone here is making some very good points. i mixed thoughts on what is going on around the world and in iraq today.i do support the troops but is what we are doing there worth it , or even the right thing ????

oh and stay safe out there fella

 

[KINGFROMQUEENS]

KFQ,

I agree with you -- I just don't think the article you posted is agreeing with you. LOL

QueEx

lol nah i just put it up cause i thought it was kind of interesting.

 

[carlitos]

...I THOUGHT THIS WAS INTERESRTING

1. There were 39 combat related killings in
Iraq during the month of January.....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35
murders during the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as
deadly as the entire war torn country
of Iraq.


2. When some claim President Bush shouldn't
have started this war, state the
following .

FDR...led us into World War II. Germany
never attacked us: Japan did.

From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost,
an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman...finished that war and started one
in Korea, North Korea never attacked us.

From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost,
an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy. ..started the Vietnam
conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

Johnson...turned Vietnam into a quagmire.
From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an
average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton...went to war in Bosnia without UN or
French consent, Bosnia never attacked us.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a
platter three times by Sudan and did nothing.

Osama has attacked us on multiple
occasions.

3. In the two years since terrorists attacked
us:

President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled
al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without
firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his
own people.

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch
Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less
time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing
records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy
the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police
after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.

President Bush has liberated two countries

the most ignorant piece i've read today..pure Rush Limbao rehash.

 

[Spectrum]

Don't worry about disagreeing, thats healthy. We may not disagree in the end or we may respectfully disagree without being disagreeable.

As I read the article (statement or whatever), its purpose is clearly to support Bush's decision to invade Iraq. That it does that, in my opinion, is of no moment -- it is the misleading use of meaningless stats that is the problem.

I don't think I need to pick apart each of the statements, but we know war comes for many reasons and whether we were directly attacked is not the whole answer -- for if there is a real and present threat, one need not wait to preempt it.

You will note that the article notes that neither Germany, North Korea, Vietnam or Bosnia attack us -- but we attacked them, THEREFORE,, we are justified in invading Iraq because we were attacked by Al Qaeda and in the process continued the process by going into Iraq ... blah blah, blah ... and handle North Korea etc., in the process. Simply put, my point is that why we attacked any country has to be judged based on the FACTS and circumstances at that time, Iraq included. What this article says is if they (dems or whoever) attacked the named countries and lost as many lives as was lost -- how can you blame GW for invading Iraq (because it was provoked) and we have lost far fewer lives at this point.

NONE of that idiocy is predicated on the particular facts of the particular military involvement. It may be that intervention cannot be justified in any of the cases, including Iraq, but the comparisons based on whether or not we were attacked as suggested in the article is an emotional appeal and just plain useless.

QueEx

Now I would agree that trying to "justify" the war based off previous U.S. responses isn't logically as Bush really pulled off a unique deal with the whole "preemptive" argument. I think I made another post previously about how manipulative the adminstation had been to justify our involvement. I don't agree with the means that we used. Yes, some of that was taken out of context in the original post in this thread..a string of numbers not illustratively tied to the complementary figures..however, the part about Clinton dropping the ball on Bin laden really is a big deal.

 

[Greed]

i think the most interesting fact is in the title of the thread.

KFQ knew that if a post doesnt spit pure hate at bush then it often is put in the category of "bush supporting." i've seen QueEx called a bush lover before or even worse a PATRIOT. god forbid.

sad state of politics in america. KFQ's intent was to be fair(my guess) but he had to qualify it with he's not bush loving, which oddly enough is a little biased in itself..

 

[Spectrum]

i think the most interesting fact is in the title of the thread.

KFQ knew that if a post doesnt spit pure hate at bush then it often is put in the category of "bush supporting." i've seen QueEx called a bush lover before or even worse a PATRIOT. god forbid.

sad state of politics in america. KFQ's intent was to be fair(my guess) but he had to qualify it with he's not bush loving, which oddly enough is a little biased in itself..

Greed. It's funny that you point that out because when I saw that I thought that was definately interesting that he had to make that distinction.

 

[Greed]

why did clinton "liberate" bosnian muslims but politics doesnt allow for bush to have liberated those 2 countries.

i mean its all bullshit and none of the liberating was for liberation's sake, but why nitpick the shit?

 

[rude_dog]

I'm just assuming since you had had Atlas Shrugged as your avatar, you're a conservative and probably biased. I'll be honest, I've never read the book but I know it's conservative dogma. Nothing personnel.

 

[Spectrum]

why did clinton "liberate" bosnian muslims but politics doesnt allow for bush to have liberated those 2 countries.

i mean its all bullshit and none of the liberating was for liberation's sake, but why nitpick the shit?

Well people nitpick because it depends on how they need to spin it for their own purposes. The reality is that any government should use its influence for its own self interest barring it doesn't break international law, etc. All these actions are to protect American interests in one way or another. Kuwait..to protect oil interest..did we liberate or help maintain the sovereign position of Kuwait..yes. Was it done specifically for their freedom? No. It was done to protect our oil interest. That is fine. That is the purpose of a government. However, people like to spin situations depending on which adminstration was actually behind the wheel of the car indepedent of anything else. I know you already know this Greed but I was just thinking out loud so to speak.

 

[Spectrum]

I'm just assuming since you had had Atlas Shrugged as your avatar, you're a conservative and probably biased. I'll be honest, I've never read the book but I know it's conservative dogma. Nothing personnel.

It's not "conservative dogma". How do you know what it is if you've never read the book? I wish I had that type of talent. Also..reading that book, based on your biased preconceived notions of it, would make me probably biased about what?

 

[QueEx]

i i've seen QueEx called a bush lover before or even worse a PATRIOT. god forbid.

whatchutalkingboutGreed ?

QueEx

 

[Greed]

whatchutalkingboutGreed ?

QueEx

you know me, i just love pointing out that people are at the point where patriot is thrown around like a curse word.

 

[QueEx]

... Bush really pulled off a unique deal with the whole "preemptive" argument...

Here I go being a Bush Lover again. Much has been made about the so-called Preemptive Doctrine -- and much of that has been made about Bush's use of preemption as being NEW and a departure from past policy. I don't agree that it is either new or a departure. The Monroe Doctrine was inherently based upon preemption.

Unless we have been attacked (i.e., Pearl) damn near every military action (attack or intervention) is preemption. The goal of those actions have been to prevent a threat from developing into one that might put U.S. forces in a bind or expose us to an attack. Vietnam was to stop the dominoe-spread of communism before it became unmanageable -- in essense, preemptive. Our forces in S. Korea are there to deter N. Korea agression, in effect, preemptive. Since the Korean line of demarcation was drawn, we haven't seriously crossed it -- but in Vietnam we attacked, albeit for the most part south of the DMZ -- BUT we did a lot of bombing of Hanoi and in Cambodia and Laos. Still, we attacked on non-American soil. See also, Kuwait.

The 1960's Cuban Crisis was itself preemption. Our interdiction of Soviet ships enroute to Cuba was to preempt the further placement of missiles on Cuba and to remove those that were there. That there was no shooting, doesn't lessen the preemptive nature of the confrontation. But, it cannot be said that the U.S. did not move FIRST, without being attacked, at preemption.

Then, there was Grenada, Panama, and even Taiwan. All can be explained in preemptive terms.

So, Bush was not the first and Iraq is not totally an aberration. The issue, however, is always, whether preemption was necessary. That, at least to me, is the question.

QueEx

P.S.: I know what I said was a bit off-topic and not necessarily in response to what you were saying. You said the word Preemption, however, and it gave me the opportunity to express a thought that has been lingering for a while. LOL.

 

[KINGFROMQUEENS]

I THOUGHT THE PIECE WAS INTERSESTING BUT KIND OF PRO BUSH. i did not want people to think i was pro bush , but i thought it would provoke a good conversation here , wich it has.thats the reason for the title and thread.

 

[Spectrum]

Here I go being a Bush Lover again. Much has been made about the so-called Preemptive Doctrine -- and much of that has been made about Bush's use of preemption as being NEW and a departure from past policy. I don't agree that it is either new or a departure. The Monroe Doctrine was inherently based upon preemption.

Unless we have been attacked (i.e., Pearl) damn near every military action (attack or intervention) is preemption. The goal of those actions have been to prevent a threat from developing into one that might put U.S. forces in a bind or expose us to an attack. Vietnam was to stop the dominoe-spread of communism before it became unmanageable -- in essense, preemptive. Our forces in S. Korea are there to deter N. Korea agression, in effect, preemptive. Since the Korean line of demarcation was drawn, we haven't seriously crossed it -- but in Vietnam we attacked, albeit for the most part south of the DMZ -- BUT we did a lot of bombing of Hanoi and in Cambodia and Laos. Still, we attacked on non-American soil. See also, Kuwait.

The 1960's Cuban Crisis was itself preemption. Our interdiction of Soviet ships enroute to Cuba was to preempt the further placement of missiles on Cuba and to remove those that were there. That there was no shooting, doesn't lessen the preemptive nature of the confrontation. But, it cannot be said that the U.S. did not move FIRST, without being attacked, at preemption.

Then, there was Grenada, Panama, and even Taiwan. All can be explained in preemptive terms.

So, Bush was not the first and Iraq is not totally an aberration. The issue, however, is always, whether preemption was necessary. That, at least to me, is the question.

QueEx

P.S.: I know what I said was a bit off-topic and not necessarily in response to what you were saying. You said the word Preemption, however, and it gave me the opportunity to express a thought that has been lingering for a while. LOL.

QueEx,

I was being lazy and didn't elaborate. That is what I meant by his use of preemptive. Bush used preemptive powers and the adminstration sold the public the idea that Iraq was an imminent threat. However, we've found out that was certainly not the case as with the previous situation like the ones you stated. There was already "military agression" in those other situations you mentioned. It wasn't really a difficult sell. With the Cuban Missile Crisis..again the threat was very obvious and imminent. I was actually a strong Bush supporter at the point in time of taking action against Iraq before this adminstrations continued fumbling. So my issue with the situation was not the initial use of his power, but the idea that it wasn't substantiated based on evidence that later never came to fruition...i.e. no weapons of mass destruction,etc.

 

[Djmarkxr7]

I THOUGHT THE PIECE WAS INTERSESTING BUT KIND OF PRO BUSH. i did not want people to think i was pro bush , but i thought it would provoke a good conversation here , wich it has.thats the reason for the title and thread.

Haha, that's kinda funny KFQ when you say you "thought" this piece was kind of pro Bush! I guess you didn't notice that all of the Presidents named were Democrats! Rude_dog pointed out the things I was going to say so I won't repeat them. This thread DID provoke good convo though!
P.S. This has the CIA written ALL over it!

 

[nittie]

There's some good points in the post, let's not forget what's happening in Iraq is a chapter in a very long story. During the Jefferson era Middle East countries use to pirate American vessels and sell the crew into slavery, they abducted white women and made them part of their harems, they sided with our enemies during WWI and II so Bush was on point to try and end the sad saga once and for all. The problem with this administration is they are failing where previous administration at least made some progress, Bush made us believe this would be a quick clean campaign and it's been everything but that plus if we fail in this fight it will embolden terrorist and in the process set our policies and security back at least 50 yrs.

 

[Makeherhappy]

People People.

I hear the arguement over and over.

Let me help you all out.

1. Bush not only doesn't care about black people, he just doesn't care.
2. He's not incompetent.
3. This so called, "preemptive strike" is just the start of "preemptive strikes"
4. Oil prices were extremely stabilized before the war, distabilization of those prices have brought great profits to Oil companies and terrorist.
5. I highly recommend you all read a book, "The Grand Chessboard." The author's last name s Zeirbinski(not sure about the spelling)
6. Clinton didn't drop the ball, he didn't care also.
7. Do you realize that 80% of the market is corporate invested?

After reading this, it's some things you should accept.

Bush is bad news.
We are and have always been funding terrorism.
Don't believe they don't like us because of our freedoms.
And we haven't seen anything yet.

Yall be easy and don't get confused by the "media"

 

[Spectrum]

People People.

I hear the arguement over and over.

Let me help you all out.

1. Bush not only doesn't care about black people, he just doesn't care.
2. He's not incompetent.
3. This so called, "preemptive strike" is just the start of "preemptive strikes"
4. Oil prices were extremely stabilized before the war, distabilization of those prices have brought great profits to Oil companies and terrorist.
5. I highly recommend you all read a book, "The Grand Chessboard." The author's last name s Zeirbinski(not sure about the spelling)
6. Clinton didn't drop the ball, he didn't care also.
7. Do you realize that 80% of the market is corporate invested?

After reading this, it's some things you should accept.

Bush is bad news.
We are and have always been funding terrorism.
Don't believe they don't like us because of our freedoms.
And we haven't seen anything yet.

Yall be easy and don't get confused by the "media"

You make alot of "claims" and "statements" with nothing to back them up. Oil prices weren't extremely stable before the war and the reality of the matter is that oil prices will continue to rise regardless of what happens with this Adminstration or the next. These are world supply chain issues...supply and demand.

Muslim Extremist do hate us for what we stand for my friend. They would like to see the entire world ruled my Muslim law..the Sha'ria...which is the exact polor opposite of a democratic capitalistic society. Take it from someone who studied Islam in college, speaks Arabic, and been to the Middle East. This is no media spin. The fundamentalist and even moderate Islamic ideology is in opposition to "western" ideas. They don't refer to us as the "land of the dead" for no reason.

I don't know what you meant by point 7: 80 percent of what "market" are you referring. Come back and elaborate.

I put that book you mentioned in my wishlist. It looks decent.

 

[Makeherhappy]

You make alot of "claims" and "statements" with nothing to back them up. Oil prices weren't extremely stable before the war and the reality of the matter is that oil prices will continue to rise regardless of what happens with this Adminstration or the next. These are world supply chain issues...supply and demand.

Muslim Extremist do hate us for what we stand for my friend. They would like to see the entire world ruled my Muslim law..the Sha'ria...which is the exact polor opposite of a democratic capitalistic society. Take it from someone who studied Islam in college, speaks Arabic, and been to the Middle East. This is no media spin. The fundamentalist and even moderate Islamic ideology is in opposition to "western" ideas. They don't refer to us as the "land of the dead" for no reason.

I don't know what you meant by point 7: 80 percent of what "market" are you referring. Come back and elaborate.

I put that book you mentioned in my wishlist. It looks decent.

Gives a little indication of the stability, I would have to pull my other papers to get you the other oil prices.

http://www.forbes.com/static_html/oil/2004/oil.shtml

We don't have democratic society. We have a "democratic way of voting", but we are a Republic.

So our relentless support for Israel has nothing to do with their hate?
Our flip floppy support for terrorism has nothing to do with their hate?
Our "secret" governmental coups and operations has nothing to do with their hate?

Since you put that information out there,
What college did you go to?
When did you go to the middle east?
Did you major in islamic law?
Did you get your degree from a school in the middle east?


By the way, I've studied math in school, and the numbers don't add up.

after you answer those question i'll go deeper.....

oh, the book should be an immediate buy.

 

[bulldogg70]

I agree with everything that you are saying. The problem isn't Bush in and of himself...its the neoconversative mindstate...not their goals.but the way the go about attemping to achieve them. They have a very machiavellian mentality: the ends justify the means..i.e. you can do evil if the end result is good..you can manipulate if the end result extends the American dynasty...you can commit immoral actions for the sake of the moral causes. The idealogy is contradictory in nature. If you look at "New American Century" for instance..which alot of Bush's administration is apart of..their goals for America are praiseworthy and we as Americans should want those types of goals;however, the means they advocate (manipulating to justify a war in Iraq to get a stronghold in the middle east to fight terrorism and secure strategic oil reserves) are questionable..not the goal but the means are questionable.

When I was going to Washington before I went to Iraq..our delagation was meeting with Senator Biden(who is exceptionally intelligent btw) regularly and he was saying that there is a huge misconception that Bush is unintelligent. He said that isn't the case. He said the major problem is that Bush delegates and trusts his appointees too much. He doesn't question the integrity of their arguments and takes them at face value. Thus he supports his constituents with the idea that they actually plan to do what they say they will or that the information they are providing is factual..not considering that they could have their own alterior motives. This was from the mouth of one of the Senators who deals with him. We also heard this sentiment from several top level politicians in Washington.

Your willingness to negate the steps that Bush took because of historical events is baseless.
Lets first start off with WWII. Yes Japan did attack us first, but the total scheme was that Japan and Germany was going to divide the world amongst themselves. America knew that oil was limited, as well as resources for Japan, all we need was for China to hang-on, which they did. On the other hand if Germany accomplished their mission of taking over Russia and England all resources (oil) could have been diverted to Asia and we would have had to fight the war on two fronts. The war choice was an excellent military mover for the total package.
Vietnam I will leave alone, but there was a lot going on, overall we will never completely know why Kennedy did what he did, but it is what it is.
Bosnia never did attack us, however Clinton felt it was a morale duty, there where mass graves, in plain site the death was terrible. Our intervention worked and 10's of thousands of Muslims are freely practicing their religion, something the right-wing hates.
Osma Bid-Laden was the creation of Ollie North, Rumsfield and the war branch we made him what he was, and it was not as easy as ‘just’ handing him over.
Now the Murders in Detroit have nothing to do with the Murders in Iraq, other than they both are useless and unnecessary.
President Bush lied to the people, over and over and over again. He lied about WMD’s, he lied about troop strength, he lied about secondary causes, and now we have learned that although Bush, Blair and all knew it was a lie and went on with the plan; Saddam was willing to exile his country, guess who would not let him.
The war has caused a 7 trillion dollar deficit, and to make these compare and contrast as to even remotely just this illegal action is beyond the grasp of rational reasoning. There was, and is absolutely know reason why we needed to go to war with Iraq. Just as you and I where better off 8 years ago without Bush, the Iraqi’s where better off as well.

 

[Spectrum]

Your willingness to negate the steps that Bush took because of historical events is baseless.
Lets first start off with WWII. Yes Japan did attack us first, but the total scheme was that Japan and Germany was going to divide the world amongst themselves. America knew that oil was limited, as well as resources for Japan, all we need was for China to hang-on, which they did. On the other hand if Germany accomplished their mission of taking over Russia and England all resources (oil) could have been diverted to Asia and we would have had to fight the war on two fronts. The war choice was an excellent military mover for the total package.
Vietnam I will leave alone, but there was a lot going on, overall we will never completely know why Kennedy did what he did, but it is what it is.
Bosnia never did attack us, however Clinton felt it was a morale duty, there where mass graves, in plain site the death was terrible. Our intervention worked and 10's of thousands of Muslims are freely practicing their religion, something the right-wing hates.
Osma Bid-Laden was the creation of Ollie North, Rumsfield and the war branch we made him what he was, and it was not as easy as ‘just’ handing him over.
Now the Murders in Detroit have nothing to do with the Murders in Iraq, other than they both are useless and unnecessary.
President Bush lied to the people, over and over and over again. He lied about WMD’s, he lied about troop strength, he lied about secondary causes, and now we have learned that although Bush, Blair and all knew it was a lie and went on with the plan; Saddam was willing to exile his country, guess who would not let him.
The war has caused a 7 trillion dollar deficit, and to make these compare and contrast as to even remotely just this illegal action is beyond the grasp of rational reasoning. There was, and is absolutely know reason why we needed to go to war with Iraq. Just as you and I where better off 8 years ago without Bush, the Iraqi’s where better off as well.

You homeskillet. I didn't make the original post in this thread. You are addressing all this shit to the wrong poster..because I made no claims about Bosnia, or Detroit, or Bush's declarations. Properly address your sentiments and don't confuse the posters.

Futhermore, the expenses for every war in the history of this nation doesn't equate to 7 trillion dollars so your statement about this war causing a 7 trillion dollar deficit is completely ill informed. Our current economic situation..especially the debt is completely indepentent of this war situation. It has much more to do with our Keynesian economic policy, relentless government borrowing from the fed, low saving rate, absurb consumer debt rations, etc. You absolutely have no idea about economics if you think this little squirmish in the Middle East is what is waying our economic situation down. Our national debt has been there for decades. Don't be confused by any of the latest adminstrations "budget surpluses" or "budget deficits"..essentially the U.S. is bankrupt and only our standing as the world's reserve currency and our access to the FED keeps the deck of cards from tumbling down.

In regards to what Bush knew or didn't know. Let me tell you something..you and I can read a thousand books, articles, etc about Bush's history, administration etc...all from multiple points of view but the reality is this...one day on land is worth more than a 1000 years of telling a fish about it. I.E. I heard from his peers..i.e. Senator Biden who rubs shoulders and lives in that environment and he is even a hardcore Democrat. Even he says that the problem is the hard core neoconserves that Bush appointed who were also apart of his Father's administration. The President is ONE man in an organization of thousands of decision makers. Don't think that Bush is omniscient and he could have very well been lead astray. He won't be the first president and he won't be the last.

In regards to our current situations: I'm doing just fine. Don't speak for me.

 

[bulldogg70]

You homeskillet. I didn't make the original post in this thread. You are addressing all this shit to the wrong poster..because I made no claims about Bosnia, or Detroit, or Bush's declarations. Properly address your sentiments and don't confuse the posters.

Futhermore, the expenses for every war in the history of this nation doesn't equate to 7 trillion dollars so your statement about this war causing a 7 trillion dollar deficit is completely ill informed. Our current economic situation..especially the debt is completely indepentent of this war situation. It has much more to do with our Keynesian economic policy, relentless government borrowing from the fed, low saving rate, absurb consumer debt rations, etc. You absolutely have no idea about economics if you think this little squirmish in the Middle East is what is waying our economic situation down. Our national debt has been there for decades. Don't be confused by any of the latest adminstrations "budget surpluses" or "budget deficits"..essentially the U.S. is bankrupt and only our standing as the world's reserve currency and our access to the FED keeps the deck of cards from tumbling down.

In regards to what Bush knew or didn't know. Let me tell you something..you and I can read a thousand books, articles, etc about Bush's history, administration etc...all from multiple points of view but the reality is this...one day on land is worth more than a 1000 years of telling a fish about it. I.E. I heard from his peers..i.e. Senator Biden who rubs shoulders and lives in that environment and he is even a hardcore Democrat. Even he says that the problem is the hard core neoconserves that Bush appointed who were also apart of his Father's administration. The President is ONE man in an organization of thousands of decision makers. Don't think that Bush is omniscient and he could have very well been lead astray. He won't be the first president and he won't be the last.

In regards to our current situations: I'm doing just fine. Don't speak for me.

I do not think that the deficit, per se is because of the war with Iraq. I would also have to agree with you that we have had deficits since the beggning of the formation of this government.
However, the borrowing, unaccounted borrowing, into special military programs, military spending (contract going to haliburton, GD, Defense, etc) all in the name of the War on Terrorism is what is driving deficit spending up to new heights. The interesting thing about the deficits is the idea that China is the biggest 'buyer' [borrower] for the United States, go figure that national security bs that was told to us before. At any time the Chineese could dumb our bonds back on us and we would be moved into hyper-inflation mode around here. Of course I know China would also have ill effects, but it is a good destablization tool.
When Clinton left office we had a total spending deficit of 2.4 trillion dollars. If spending stayed the same, we would have been out of all reasonable debt by 2015. The problem now is how can you ever stop the Republicans from spending, moreso when the people, continue to believe, under the myth, that the deficit spending is coming to fight the war on terror???
A prime example of this is SSI, everyone is lead to believe that it is in deficit mode. Go look it up on the GAO, it is positve. THe problem is that the Presidents (since Nixon) have borrowed money from it and have not replaced it and so a good way to make it appear that we got rid of deficit spending is ridding ourselves of SSI . .. 3 trillion down the drain, not bad when playing with numbers
Finally I apologize if I caused any trouble on posting off of our post, new to this forum, do not know how the mistake was made.