Time Mag POTY 1938-Hitler 2004-Bush

[glyph]

I'd hardly consider Bush a worthy spokesman.. Unfortunately, WE THE PEOPLE, allow our election system to be s***. Direct Democracy would benefit us, but we choose to ignore technology of today to help us out. It's just funny how you can lose the popular vote and still be president (and no, I am not talking about this years race)

agreed. I have always questioned the validity of the electoral system. But of course, we are a republic more than a democracy, despite how much democracy itself is valued. I hate the fact that 51% of people can vote for someone and the person will not win.

Tons of evidence? What evidence is that? Pictures of supposed bunkers? Military Integillence is what is called an oxymoron. Namely, because MORONS are in the military. Aside from the supposed crap, Bush and his administration made the biggest push. Of course congress is going to back the pres, who was the MAJORITY in congress? Almost all of congress would say they were duped by lies and stupid intelligence.

It's all classified. I base my opinion on the fact that nearly all of Congress agreed to the necessity of going into Iraq again. Yes, Bush and his administration made the biggest push, but I believe they had reason. If the evidence was actually faulty, at the time, don't you think the investigation would prove that? The 9/11 commission proved the intelligence was incomplete, but that is with the benefit of having free access to the information well after the fact. Yes, a huge mistake was made in the estimation of Iraq's capabilities. The basis of our going into Iraq we NOW know to be faulty. At the time, we didn't. Majority isn't all that won the vote. I think only 2 people didn't vote to go into Iraq. That is a little more than a simple Majority. Don't cloud the issue. As to what congress WOULD say, what are they actually saying? There is plenty of recordings of that. Don't forget to take partisanship into account.

we aren't the world police. We don't need to be the Bully. If the UN didn't back the US isn't that some sort of FLAG? I mean come on, their tendency to use weapons of mass destruction? Where? They used gas on kurds. I'd still like to see these WOMD.

Gas IS a WOMD. No we aren't the world police, but we are the most powerful member of the UN, and we signed the resolutions just like most of the UN did. We signed that we would (as part of UN) implement the consequences promised. Did you ever look at what the UN actually passed in its resolutions? The consequences they promised? Did they ever occur? Nope. Take a look at the UN's food for oil scandal ongoing. Do you think people in a deal to make lots of money would jeapardize their personal riches to effect a solution to the Iraq problem? Obviously not, as we are seeing Kofi Anan embroiled in scandal for making exactly that decision. Don't forget we had many countries support publicly, and many countries' support behind the scenes. I personally have experienced that support, but cannot say more. Classified and all. Don't forget, Iraq expressed hostility directly towards us, not so much the UN.

He knew what he would be doing in his term, just as his father did. Of course they are going to back the military that they are going to be using. Think of it this way, if you are going to have sex with your wife, are you going spit on her first? Clinton actually cut spending for the military, because that is exactly what was needed. Seriously, if the budget is over and you are over spending on military where are you going to cut the budget? Think about it.. it's freaking common sense. Bush has increased the deficit by HOW MUCH? Now his plans are to suddenly cut it in half... give me a break.

Do you understand how Reagan took down the USSR? By outspending them. Also, Bush, as a Republican, can be expected to put money into the military. It's a matter of beliefs in what the country needs. Republicans tend to think military should be strong. Besides, Bush wasn't in office long before 9/11.

What VIETNAM-LIKE limitations were taken by clinton?

In Vietnam, the administration took a stance of ranking each and every target listed as valuable by the Joint Chiefs. McNamara's take was to be almost personally in charge of the targets selected. This was a severe limitation, as it basically meant the military didn't conduct the operations, a civilian with a financial background did. Soon the war became focused mainly on body counts. How many baddies were killed vs how many friendlies killed? Those kinds of limitations. In Somalia, very similar restrictions were placed on what operations could be conducted. The military was not allowed to conduct operations on the established doctrines of the time. Civilians (Clinton's administration) maintained more control than they should have.

Bush is like any other politician, unsincere. He could care less about the military, and that's probably true, although it's my opinion. You can spout this and that about how he helped the military. He hasn't really. There are so many other things he can do to help the military in the long run. Not give them two pay raises in one year. WOW.

Are you in the military? Because if not, I would put more money on my perception of Bush taking care of me.

 

[BacDoc]

Hitler did some really great things for Germany....before he lost his ever lovin' mind!

 

[biochembruin]

"The great masses of the people ... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one."

Adolf Hitler​

 

[glyph]

we as the general public get to sit back, with out any accountability and say how THEY should of handled things. but in perfect honesty we, the general public, are not privy to the same information, and intelligence the people making the decisions are.

whatever your beliefs are on how things should of been done, and as much as it is your right to question, b****, moan, priase, etc. the actions of your elected officials, anyone who claims to know everything they know, every bit of intelligence, every angle effected, and every consequence of actions is a fool.

probably the best statement in this forum. Very very true. I only see my little portion of the military.

 

[glyph]

The thing is, we as people, should know the facts as much as possible. So if what we are given is half lies and faslehoods, what other information are we to make an actual informed decision about? Aside from that fact, the president or congress don't get every bit of intelligence, every angle effected, or every consequence of actions. We can see that now. It's called hindsight.

A great quote from Tommy Boy:
"What the American public doesn't know, is what makes them the American public."

Do you really believe the information you have is complete and balanced? Whenever we rely on another person to provide us information, that information will ALWAYS be colored, however slightly, by that person's perception. Even more so when the person is not doing all they can to remove any alteration to the information.

That's why you need to consider all available sources. I just don't like when people act like their opinion is perfectly accurate with no allowance for error, when most of their information comes from periodic viewing of the television, or reading of newspapers, when that information is already severely filtered.

 

[glyph]

Actually, there about 2500 killed. And, the difference, it was an act of war against us. We actually KNEW who comitted the act, thus a reason for war. There's a very thin line with Sadam and 9/11, if that is what you are implying.

You are right. "2,403 dead" from http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/pearl.htm

Al Qaeda was the direct link to 9/11. WOMD combined with the willingness to support terrorism was the direct (main) link of Iraq. Sorry if I mispoke.

 

[glyph]

How is nobody backing anything up? What do you want to know? Bush is a hypocrite because he actually opposed The Department of Homeland Security? Then later, for politcal reasons, exploited it. How about even after saying he is going to beef up security, we still have yet to see anything other than airports, which are still lacking. I mean, we only physically inspect roughly 6% of cargo, our border patrol is absolute crap. How about railroads, how about subways? ZERO DOLLARS. How about NAACP bad mouthing Bush and now they are getting examined by the IRS, but yet Bush has had many conversations with church congregations, but nothing has come of that? Not only that, but Bush's administration to clearly categorize terrorism as absolutely appaling. Look up Israeli/Palestinian attacks/suicide bombs. They only claim 9 of 97 were significant... I could go on, but I have to leave work...

For instance, you are stating a lot statistical sounding information, but you quote no sources. How do you know all this to be true? Further, how do you know your interpretation of said events is accurate?

 

[Roywhitep5]

bush = a usurper of sovereignty

 

[glyph]

Please tell me how the intelligence was accurate, are you saying it wasn't disputed within the intelligence community and are you saying that there wasn't any contradictory evidence? How can every single reason he posed for war in Iraq be eventually proven false? Perhaps he only presented the evidence that supported his goal of war. Bush framed the argument as a matter of national security, and if anyone voted against the authorization for force was portrayed as weak against terrorism....fact is war in Iraq and war on terrorism are mutualy exclusive.

is intelligence ever 100% certain? according to the information we had at the time we made the decision to go to war, it was quite clear to all but 2 of Congress (who had a lot more information than any of us did) even with all of the democrats, who just like republicans, are partisan. Seems to me the intelligence was compelling. We didn't know that it was inaccurate until well after the fact. You say "perhaps", but if that was true, don't you think all the investigations would have turned up some evidence to that effect? No one has, yet. Not to say it won't in the future, but I don't believe it will. Don't you think the Democrats in Congress are a just slightly tilted against Bush and would do their best not to go along with war just because Bush says so? Come on. Logic doesn't back up your statement.

You say, "fact is war in Iraq and war on terrorism are mutualy exclusive". How is that a fact? That is obviously an opinion, and I see absolutely no logic to support it.

Couldn't tell you there. Rummy was there supposedly for a question and answer session, I guess he was expecting another photo-op but it didn't work out that way. I for one am glad not to have been trained to accept authority regardless of my doubts, guess that soldier and all the ones who cheered him missed his lesson too.

you misinterpret what I said. I did not say we are trained to accept authority regardless of doubts. We are all trained on the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), which explicitly state that we are to only follow orders considered lawful orders, which are largely based on the Geneva convetions. LOAC makes very clear distinctions between right and wrong in a time of war. http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm

I said that there is a process for expressing complaints that is well defined. Our rules are well defined. Every single military member has signed a bunch of paperwork upon enlistment or commissioning that says the individual agrees to the rules of the military. Much like an oath of office. Those who disobey their sworn statements show a lack of integrity, which again, is the foundation of our military.

 

[glyph]

bush = a usurper of sovereignty

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Emotional statements with no basis in fact. It doesn't even make sense. I assume you are using the word sovereignty in the third version listed below. Unless you mean that Bush usurped Iraq's sovereignty. If that was true, why would we be pushing for elections by the Iraqi people to happen?

from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: sovereignty
Variant(s): also sovranty /<TT>-tE</TT>/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soverainet, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : [size=-1]AUTONOMY[/size] c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

 

[seatbackfurther]

Alot of posts to respond too...hehe

Okay. Intelligence is ALWAYS skewed. I was active duty Air Force until recently at the Air Intelligence Agency in San Antonio, TX. I was not an Intelligence "person", but I had privy to the same information they did. The statistics you are talking about can be easily found. I actually read the from a Government spending article I read when I was active duty. So of course I can't cite it. I'm pretty positive you can find somewhere the spending habits of the DHS, somewhere on the web.

Intelligence is called Intelligence and not fact. The fact is, Americans are just now seeing the intelligence Bush had at that time. The intel he HAD. It's disheartening to see that people can't take things for what they are worth. The thing is, he made a judgement call, pure and simple. He has to live with it. Wether you think he was right, or wether you think he was wrong, it's more a matter of opinion. This could go on for days. Which, it is rather amusing. The facts are simple. He had plenty of intelligence that could swing either way, and he had alot of heresay. So, now that americans are actually hearing the intelligence, they can't crtisize what he did? That's actually baffling. I mean, yes we can say he did what he to do, but did he have to do it? Alot of the intelligence was unchecked and incomplete. Aside, as I've said before, I wouldn't call military and government intel, intelligent.

 

[Roywhitep5]

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Emotional statements with no basis in fact. It doesn't even make sense. I assume you are using the word sovereignty in the third version listed below. Unless you mean that Bush usurped Iraq's sovereignty. If that was true, why would we be pushing for elections by the Iraqi people to happen?

from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: sovereignty
Variant(s): also sovranty /<TT>-tE</TT>/
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle English soverainte, from Middle French soverainet, from Old French, from soverain
1 obsolete : supreme excellence or an example of it
2 a : supreme power especially over a body politic b : freedom from external control : [size=-1]AUTONOMY[/size] c : controlling influence
3 : one that is sovereign; especially : an autonomous state

omfg

 

[seatbackfurther]

This is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Emotional statements with no basis in fact. It doesn't even make sense. I assume you are using the word sovereignty in the third version listed below. Unless you mean that Bush usurped Iraq's sovereignty. If that was true, why would we be pushing for elections by the Iraqi people to happen?

Because as a dictatorship he had no "friendly relations", but as the one who helped bring down the "power", he would now be heralded, and will have a vested interest for a long duration of time. It's quite simple actually. I don't understand the need for "basis in fact." The fact is, we will be a large part of the country and have ties for some period. Now what is done with friendly relationship, remains to be seen. That would be an opinion. If someone said he would use it for "bad" purposes, just as say, you, might say it is intended for good purposes.

 

[anarchistchiken]

Glyph, Iraq WAS a sovereign state. It was an esatblished country with diplomatic and economic ties and treaties, etc etc. We invaded them. Straight up. Call it what you want, a regime change, a police action, whatever. We invaded them and killed thousands and thousand and thousands of their civilians, at leave five times more than died in the September 11 attacks.

In that respect, the encroachment of a sovereign nation, Bush, according to definition, is a facist. He's the only president in the 228 year history of the US to declare a war of aggresion on a sovereign nation-state and follow through with it to the point of totally collapsing their political system and economic infrastructure.

Of course he's pushing to hold elections there. The only way hes going to be able to save even the slightet bit of face in the international community is even he gets a real, homecooked and hand selected democratic government going. And dont even begin to say that Bush doesn't pick exactly whos going in all the slots of their government, because that would just be ludicrous. If he let them have a totally free election without any US aided propganda or anything, they might elect another warlord, and bush couldnt have that, because he knows whats best for them better than they do.

Make me sick to think of it all on this broad a scale.

 

[glyph]

Alot of posts to respond too...hehe

Okay. Intelligence is ALWAYS skewed. I was active duty Air Force until recently at the Air Intelligence Agency in San Antonio, TX. I was not an Intelligence "person", but I had privy to the same information they did. The statistics you are talking about can be easily found. I actually read the from a Government spending article I read when I was active duty. So of course I can't cite it. I'm pretty positive you can find somewhere the spending habits of the DHS, somewhere on the web.

Intelligence is called Intelligence and not fact. The fact is, Americans are just now seeing the intelligence Bush had at that time. The intel he HAD. It's disheartening to see that people can't take things for what they are worth. The thing is, he made a judgement call, pure and simple. He has to live with it. Wether you think he was right, or wether you think he was wrong, it's more a matter of opinion. This could go on for days. Which, it is rather amusing. The facts are simple. He had plenty of intelligence that could swing either way, and he had alot of heresay. So, now that americans are actually hearing the intelligence, they can't crtisize what he did? That's actually baffling. I mean, yes we can say he did what he to do, but did he have to do it? Alot of the intelligence was unchecked and incomplete. Aside, as I've said before, I wouldn't call military and government intel, intelligent.

have to go and read back...

You definitely have credentials.

I doubt we will see much of the intelligence for quite a while, and I sincerely doubt they will show us everything they had. Too much about collection methods would be revealed.

Military Intelligence = oxymoron : very true

I am not saying we shouldn't criticize. I am saying to do so with a real argument. My main issue is the accusation of lies and dishonesty on Bush's part when there is no proof. People mostly believe it because it has been said on the media so much.

(your previous post) As for morons, they are everywhere, not just the military.

 

[Roywhitep5]

what ev

 

[glyph]

Glyph, Iraq WAS a sovereign state. It was an esatblished country with diplomatic and economic ties and treaties, etc etc. We invaded them. Straight up. Call it what you want, a regime change, a police action, whatever. We invaded them and killed thousands and thousand and thousands of their civilians, at leave five times more than died in the September 11 attacks.

True, they were a sovereign state. Where do you get this 15,000 number?

In that respect, the encroachment of a sovereign nation, Bush, according to definition, is a facist. He's the only president in the 228 year history of the US to declare a war of aggresion on a sovereign nation-state and follow through with it to the point of totally collapsing their political system and economic infrastructure.

Of course he's pushing to hold elections there. The only way hes going to be able to save even the slightet bit of face in the international community is even he gets a real, homecooked and hand selected democratic government going. And dont even begin to say that Bush doesn't pick exactly whos going in all the slots of their government, because that would just be ludicrous. If he let them have a totally free election without any US aided propganda or anything, they might elect another warlord, and bush couldnt have that, because he knows whats best for them better than they do.

Make me sick to think of it all on this broad a scale.

All from the angle that he himself is after all this for personal gain. It seems no one here is willing to take Bush at his word that this war was for exactly what he stated.

 

[glyph]

Because as a dictatorship he had no "friendly relations", but as the one who helped bring down the "power", he would now be heralded, and will have a vested interest for a long duration of time. It's quite simple actually. I don't understand the need for "basis in fact." The fact is, we will be a large part of the country and have ties for some period. Now what is done with friendly relationship, remains to be seen. That would be an opinion. If someone said he would use it for "bad" purposes, just as say, you, might say it is intended for good purposes.

Any argument has a need for "basis in fact". What is the point of arguing anything if not to find out the truth? Facts lead to truth. You would rather have an opinion with a "basis in rumor"?

 

[glyph]

man, I can't wait for my pizza to get here. getting hungry.

 

[M=SP^2]

If you don't think thousands upon thousands of Iraqi civillians have been killed in the course of Iraq war you are absolutely ignorant. There was a report that over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. It was derived through a scientific cluster sample of the Iraqi population...no I don't have it saved, but it was legit. Now sure, some of those were "bad guys", but if you can't acknowledge that many more times the number of Iraqi civilians have been killed as a direct result of our invasion, then Americans in 9/11 then you're just ignoring reality. I don't mean to make a personal attack, but to say that you don't think thousands of Iraqi civillians have been killed by U.S. troops is infuriating.