Bush and the Iraq war

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by jdoe86, Sep 9, 2004.

  1. jdoe86

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    2,722
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    523
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunnyvale (CA, US)
    Well, we have now topped 1000 Americans dead in Iraq... is this Bush's Vietnam because he didn't go back when he was hiding from the National Guard? If Bush had ever seen war in person, he would have thought twice about fighting a war we could not win. Why can't we win the Iraq war? It is the "power vacuum syndrome". You take away one evil power and the vacuum will bring in another evil. We can get into all of the reasons to go and not go to Iraq, but is 1000+ American lives worth it? Is Bush's ego that huge that he can't admit he was wrong? (Oh, I was telling the "wrong/rong" joke Jay Leno was doing before he was.. I should have put it on-line first..)
     
  2. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Iraq is proving to be an increasingly messy and expensive mistake but I think its still a bit early to compare it to the magnitude of Vietnam. However, should current trends continue, the potential is certainly there for "Iraqi Freedom" to amplify into something far uglier than it already is.

    In order for Iraq to compare to Vietnam more things will have to happen.

    * The military action will have to continue to intensify for years.

    * U.S. and coalition deaths will have to be nearly 60 times greater.

    * The draft will have to be reinstated leading to a more profound (and potentially violent) split in U.S. citizens' attitudes toward the war.

    * Fighting will have to spread to other countries in the region.

    * The U.S. will have to be forced into an ignominious pull out after having been beaten by a smaller but far more committed opponent.

    There are probably additional parallels that other readers can add.

    SG
     
  3. LuckyLuke

    LuckyLuke New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    1
    While I think that its a bit premature to compare the "results" of the two operations, particularly for some of the reasons given by Speedoguy above, I do agree that there is some similarity between the two wars - particularly the political angle that appears to be the key.

    That is to say, the reason the USA 'lost' in Vietnam has a lot to do with the fact that the South Vietnamese considered the USA to be invaders - contrary to official US policy of being "invited" by the South Vietnamese. (Note to Americans: JFK ordered over 2000 assassinations of South Vietnamese government officials in a coup to place an American-puppet in control for the purpose of inviting US forces in). The South Vietnamese people never forgave the Americans for this and therefore considered the USA to be a greater danger than the North Vietnamese.

    This is similar to the way the USA officially considers itself to be on a pseudo-UN-sanctioned mission to liberate the Iraqi people - but of course, the Iraqis are increasingly seeing the US operation as conquerors/occupiers/invaders. This practically guarentees failure of the US "alleged" policy goal.
     
  4. incognito

    incognito New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't want to get into politics on any of these threads because obviously everyone is going to have their opinion. I agree and disagree with a lot of what has been said about the president. None of it matters really when we can't change any of it. To get to the point, there is no way in hell anyone can compare this "war" to Vietnam. There isn't enough space or time to go into all the details of why. "Winning" is a loosely used term. There is no finish to this fight. People might as well get used to this fact now. I don't care who the president is now or in 20 years! This fight will and must go on. This "war" is being fought over there so that it doesn't have to be done here in the U.S. As far as who's watch a terrorist strike actually took place, take a look at history regarding these idiot terrorists. This goes back as far as Roosevelt and maybe before! It just so happens that a man finally said that enough is enough and actually did something about it. 1,000 lives so far isn't so bad considering in one terrorist attack, there were 2,700 people killed in a matter of hours. Times change and terrorism isn't going to get better or go away as time goes on. It will only get worse and more catastrophic if something isn't done about it. Especially if it isn't kept out of OUR country. Imagine living in a place where you hear gunfire and explosions on a daily basis because your neighbors don't like each other because one's Jewish and one's German. Or your neighbor is jealous of your big dick. (a lot of the terrorist reasoning is this petty to me) Anyway, remember everyone said the same thing about the Cold War and what Reagan was doing? Now it's all OK. But at the time, the country wanted to crucify him. A second example of a man who said enough is enough and did something about it. And quite honestly, it took a man like Reagan who was an actor and a bit off to come up with the stuff that he did. Star Wars!? Come on! Only Reagan could've pulled that off in combination with bankrupting an entire foreign country! Somethimes the bigger picture has to be seen. Not just the negative.
     
  5. LuckyLuke

    LuckyLuke New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    1

    Not trying to be trite or anything, but why did you bother to post here then?

    I'm not aware of any post limitation in this forum so I don't see how the "space" issue is applicable. You may not have the "time", but I'm certainly interested in such a discussion. Needless to say, I think there are several important similarities between the US operations in Iraq & Vietnam.

    Could explain this point please. It seems rather 'unconventional', but I'm curious.

    On what basis do you make this outlandish statement? There are several notable examples around the world where terrorism problems have 'gotten better' in response to various actions. N.Ireland, Italy and Southern India are reasonable examples of where 'terrorist actions' have decreased over time after a period of notable terrorist activity.

    <!--QuoteBegin-incognito
    @Sep 14 2004, 02:46 PM
    ... Imagine living in a place where you hear gunfire and explosions on a daily basis because your neighbors don&#39;t like each other... [/quote]
    You live in South Central LA perhaps? Or North Philly?
     
  6. ponybilt

    ponybilt Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    I can&#39;t really comment on whether or not this is Bush&#39;s Vietnam becasue I&#39;m not certain what outcome this speculation would do for us.

    There are, however, some interesting perspectives, particularly about the war on terrorism.

    This declaration of war always seemed a bit odd to me, as terrorism isn&#39;t an entity. It&#39;s not like the war between Iran and Iraq or the war in Vietnam. Terrorism is a tactic, not an entity. And it&#39;s this perspective that makes me agree with Bush&#39;s statement that this can not be won -- not, unless you tear down the underpinnings of what produces this tactic. Think about that: All of the factors that go into creating terrorism, including religion, must be irradicated. You can defeat people or groups that use terrorism as a tactic, but unless you remove the cause you simply can&#39;t, as I see it, eliminate the tactic as a method of manipulation, destruction, and coercion.

    In some ways, this is more like the war on apartheid or the war on drugs. You can teach "just say no," but unless you destroy the underlying ability to grow, harvest, and traffic drugs, you will not win. And sadly, this appraoch hasn&#39;t been effective with drugs. The approach at least appears to be appropriate, but to date has only made small progress.

    Terrorism is "the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

    I don&#39;t believe you can effectively fight terrorism with terrorism and you can&#39;t fight a war on terrorism while you practice your own brand of coercion for ideological and political reasons.
     
  7. B_RoysToy

    B_RoysToy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    7,558
    Likes Received:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    memphis, tennessee
    You live in South Central LA perhaps? Or North Philly?
    [post=256227]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]
    . . . Or some sections of Memphis, Tennessee, LuckyLuke. Thanks for your intelligent rebuttal to incognito&#39;s positions.

    Luke
     
  8. KinkGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,976
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    southwest US
    And let us not forget, our invasion of Iraq had/has absolutely NOTHING to do with terrorism, WMD&#39;s tyranny or the human (Iraqi) condition. Neither America nor the world is safer, but at much greater risk. In our arrogant, belligerent, domineering approach, we have given Bin Laden and the bush cartel everything they wanted. Bin Laden a holy war and the bush regime...power, oil and money. To hell with the citizens of America. :angry:
     
  9. incognito

    incognito New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    My apologies for attempting to have a "different" look on this situation. I&#39;ll try to explain each "intelligent" rebuttal.
    As far as comparisons, there may be slight similarities but the "results", as LuckyLuke stated, cannot be compared. But Lucky, if you&#39;re going to use a quote, use it in it&#39;s entirety. Not like the press who puts their twist on part of what people say. Look at what I said again. You use the negative part to feed the rest of your negative fire. You left out, "It will only get worse and more catastrophic if something isn&#39;t done about it." I didn&#39;t say that something shouldn&#39;t be done and that things won&#39;t improve. As for living in LA or Philly, all I can sayfor them is MOVE&#33; Or is your solution better? You live in a country where you have a choice. Other countries don&#39;t have that freedom, luxury or ability.
    Terrorist acts have been taking place on all presidential watches. Do your own research on that. I guess it depends on what you would consider a terrorist act too. For more info on that, see pony&#39;s post. It has a good definition.
    Regardless of why you think this "war" is happening, I think that KinkGuy hit it just right and it doesn&#39;t matter who the president is. War stimulates the economy. That&#39;s why the supreme power of the U.S. gets involved. We need it&#33; Again, everyone, check your history on wars and see deep into the reasoning. I can almost guarantee that every war has boiled down to power, oil, money, or a combination of those things. As I said before, this isn&#39;t a war that can be won. It is a war that doesn&#39;t have to be fought on our soil. Be thankful for that, the fact that you can go to sleep and wake up every day with the feeling of safety and the ability to make your own decisions, have your own thoughts, and say what you want. If you aren&#39;t thankful for that and don&#39;t like the way things are being done in this country, then remember, you do have a choice. You can&#39;t please all of the people all of the time. Thanks for all your "intelligent" rebuttals. I don&#39;t know that I should use that word because as quoted from Webster&#39;s dictionary:
    "in·tel·li·gence
    Pronunciation: in-&#39;te-l&-j&n(t)s
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin intelligentia, from intelligent-, intelligens intelligent
    1 a (1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one&#39;s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria "
    I don&#39;t see, "...with the aid of personal emotions guiding these abilities".
    Anyway, you&#39;ve all heard it. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone&#39;s got one. And everyone&#39;s stinks to someone. So we can all agree to disagree. That works for me. :)
     
  10. LuckyLuke

    LuckyLuke New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    1
    No need to apologize for having an opinion.

    As for the explanations indicated, I respectfully submit that you did no such thing.
    I&#39;m not trying to pick a fight or to attack your viewpoint. I have merely pointed out that your statements contain a variety of unsubstantiated assertions. In your earlier post, you made numerous statements presented as &#39;facts&#39;. I asked for some substantiation or explanation of those points, yet you still offer none in your second posting here.

    In particular, you didn&#39;t offer any support for the statement that the present US issue involving terrorism "goes all the way back to FDR". I am VERY curious about this statement. While I will agree that the US involvement with Islamic terrorism pre-dates the Bush Administration, I have a hard time linking it up meaningfully with FDR&#39;s Administration. Are you perhaps referring to the longevity of the issue in the Middle East?

    Similarly, you have not gone into the issue of Vietnam/Iraq. Similarly, you have not offered any support for your statement that "...terrorism isn&#39;t going to get better or go away as time goes on."

    As for selective &#39;clipping&#39; of one&#39;s posts, I respectfully submit that your original post is still there in its entirety. If anyone feels that I&#39;ve mis-represented your views in the manner of quoting back selected parts, they can easily refer to the original. There is no comparison with the practices of shoddy journalism where the original is not provided for easy reference.
     
  11. B_RoysToy

    B_RoysToy New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    7,558
    Likes Received:
    64
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    memphis, tennessee
    I group "power, oil, money, or a combination of those things" under the heading "man&#39;s basic nature of greed" and agree this has been and is the cause of wars. My following thought is there are times when greed is understandable, i.e., when the poor are starving and had rather perish through conflict, than starve and watch loved ones starve to death. I cannot condone greed which is usually strengthen by the accumulation of additional wealth, individually or nationally.

    I see the role of the leader of a country to be one of diplomacy in negotiating with those who have differing opinions and striving for peaceful settlements. After all available means are explored, war has to be the last alternative. Through out this country&#39;s history, I consider the greatest presidents being those with sincere empathy for others and having the ability to communicate diplomacy with them.

    Thanks for the opportunity to express some deep seated opinions, guys. Long live LPSG&#33;

    Luke
     
  12. jonb

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Messages:
    8,308
    Likes Received:
    2
    Yeah, and the proper way to deal with them is to deal with the terrorists. None of the terrorists were from Iraq.

    Clinton tried to deal with bin Laden in 1998, but Republicans said he was just trying to distract from the impeachment.
     
  13. SpeedoGuy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    Messages:
    4,229
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Yeah, and the proper way to deal with them is to deal with the terrorists. None of the terrorists were from Iraq.
    [post=256542]Quoted post[/post]​
    [/b][/quote]



    April 1861

    Confederate forces fire on Ft Sumter. An enraged Pres. Lincoln demands a declaration of war against Norway.

    Feb 1898

    The USS Maine explodes in Havana&#39;s harbor. President McKinley orders troops readied to make war against Italy.

    March 1916

    Pancho Villa crosses the border and attacks Texas. An enraged Pres. Wilson responds by sending General Pershing to invade and pursue Villa in Canada.

    Dec 1941.

    Following the Pearl Harbor attack, an enraged FDR asks Congress for a declaration of war against Bolivia.
     
  14. ponybilt

    ponybilt Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    I believe the FDR comment may have been -- pls correct me if I&#39;m wrong -- in regard to his statement about dictators supported by the US: "they may be sons of bitches, but they&#39;re *our* sons of bitches."

    This was actually formalized by the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which essentially is a policy that supports *our* bad guys as less evil than letting *their* bad guys assume any power.

    Regardless of the doctrine, this approach was widely applied: Somoza, Trujillo, Batista, the Shah of Iran, the PM of Fiji, Ferdinand Marcos, Franco, Pol Pot, etc -- and yes, even Sadam (under the REagan administration).

    Yet, there&#39;s no real link to terrorism here. Supporters of this policy widely accepted that these were authoritarian dictatoriships (not democracies) with horrible records of human rights abuses, but not terrorism.

    The US government support of terrorism really didn&#39;t begin until the Contra affair, when we Ollie North and cohorts were arming and funding "freedom fighters" that were blowing up anything and everything they could. We gave arms and funds to bin Laden wehn he was fighting the Soviets.

    The way I see it, international terrorism by non-national groups is a recent phenomenon that is supported by legitimate governments.

    So the FDR comment is more about "nation building" really than it is about terrorism.

    Yada yada yada :)
     
  15. Pappy

    Pappy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Messages:
    2,416
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Outta Here
    Vietnam was never a "declared" war, it was a police action. Iraq however started as a "declared" war and ended too soon. If war had been declared in Vietnam, the outcome would most likely have been different.
     
  16. D_Humper E Bogart

    D_Humper E Bogart New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,226
    Likes Received:
    2
    Blah, we&#39;re fucking for virginity.

    I do realise that the odds of me getting raped are better than the odds of me being blown up.

    WAR ON ANAL RAPE&#33;&#33;&#33;
     
  17. incognito

    incognito New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    To me, terrorism is a word more widely used now than it was back in earlier (FDR) days. It&#39;s defintion is and always has been the same. Look it up at Webster.Com All I&#39;m trying to say is there&#39;s a bigger picture thn just Iraq. There have been numerous "terrorist" acts throughout the world and against the U.S. (You do the research. I already have.) It doesn&#39;t matter who the person or group is. It&#39;s terrorism. It just so happens that, as I said before, the current president saw the "big" picture and saw a good place to start getting things done. Look at it this way... If you&#39;ve ever seen "A Bug&#39;s Life", remember when the grasshoppers were talking about the ants outnumbering them 100 to 1? That is terrorism. If you haven&#39;t seen the movie, go rent it and if nothing else, skip to the scene where the grasshoppers are partying in Mexico. Hopefully you&#39;ll get it.
    Lucky, I have no idea what you&#39;re trying to say. I&#39;m not sure that you&#39;re reading and comprehending what I&#39;ve written. Think outside the box and do some "real" research. I think you might be stuck in your thoughts and your frame of mind. This is a waste of time. Everyone wants to defend their position, not consider alternative views, do adequate research, or contribute new thoughts. I believe that my explanations/rebuttals were sufficient and need no further clarification. Also, I will refrain from discussing politics on this BB from this point forward. Refer to my post from the 17th regarding opinions and let&#39;s keep it at that.
     
  18. ponybilt

    ponybilt Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    511
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago
    Incognito, you seem to be using "the war" to mean two different things. Please clarify.

    The war on terror is not the war in Iraq. Terrorism has never been mentioned as a rationale for the pre-emptive strike on Iraq (read Bush&#39;s statements to the UN). Terrorism, in fact, was never mentioned until it was speculated that Iran and others were aiding &#39;insurgents&#39; after the fact to create turmoil through terroristic acts.

    Additionally, terrorism is not what the US has practiced by supporting dictators, and neither is it simply being outnumbered by an opponent. Please clarify the connection you see here.

    Thanks.
     
  19. incognito

    incognito New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    27
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
  20. LuckyLuke

    LuckyLuke New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    1
    Excellent points pony. The US &#39;war on terror&#39; seems to be just a propaganda game to convince Americans that the US invasion of Iraq had some publicly justifiable purpose. No doubt about it, the US has put 10 times the effort into chasing Saddam and invading Iraq than it ever bothered with Osama (who is still free). And the Taliban is re-establishing itself in Afganistan right now. If the US is serious about its "war on terror" then Osama and the Taliban are the enemy.

    In the absence of WMD&#39;s, Saddam was just a second-rate nasty dictator, the likes of which the world is filled with, so saying he &#39;had&#39; to be removed, I can only ask, then why not the rest of them? Seems rather choosy to pick on one tin-pot dictator and ignore a dozen other ones - especially ones that are clearly more dangerous (i.e. Kim Il Jong of N.Korea).

    As for the definition of terrorism, it certainly appears that the Bush Administration is using a &#39;new&#39; definition of terrorism than anyone ever used before, and that definition is entirely political, not objective. That is to say, America&#39;s enemies are defined as terrorists, regardless of action or motive. Always nice to see some Americans who see through the propaganda.

    Speaking of which, I had a long discussion thread going on another site (one devoted to US politics) and there we discussed an actual working definition of terrorism based entirely upon the action itself (independent of political considerations). Unfortunately, according to any &#39;real&#39; (ie. non-political) definition of the word, the USA is more often guilty of sponsoring/causing terrorism than the USA has ever suffered from it. (Same would be true of France and USSR as well, to be fair, as I&#39;m not some wild-eyed anti-American, rather an objective observer).
     
Draft saved Draft deleted