61% of historians agree: W. Bush is worst ever

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Yeah, unscientific poll results, and the comments in the article hardly qualify as sound arguements let alone something worthy of a professional historian.

but you've already dismissed professional historians. so why bother?

I'm sure you and others hope history will not be kind to W, whether or not you'll be able to drop your bias and assess the period in an honest and objective manner is another thing.

again, it's funny when you accuse others of doing things that you're doing when you accuse them. do you consider yourself remotely unbiased and honest and objective?

seriously. do you?

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by Strongbow
Argueing that the world would be safer with Saddam in power in Iraq, that the United States can't go to war without Germany or France at its side, and the Democrats typical ignorance of important military and defense issues certainly is.

arguing that we even needed to go to war in iraq is the first place is ignorant. maybe back when daddy bush was in power he was an evil dictator, but in the last years of his regime in iraq? no. he was an old, weakened man. all the war did was bring chaos and death to both sides in iraq, and to argue otherwise is ignorant.

[Angela Harlem]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Nor will much of the empty rubbish spewed by Democrats on a daily basis about Bush.

Actually, it's not just the Democrats in your own country who are utterly disgusted by Bush as a president. A lot of the rest of the world is of the same view.

[maycocksean]

Shit, Irvine, you really threw down the gauntlet with this one, didn't you.

I mean you had to know STING was gonna come after you.

I would agree with the assessment that it's not just the stupidity of Bush, it's the stupidity of a lot of the electorate. I'm literally aghast at how insensible a lot of people in this country can be.

[MrsSpringsteen]

He would have been booed at Fenway Park yesterday, Bill Buckner wasn't

Game over

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes

arguing that we even needed to go to war in iraq is the first place is ignorant. maybe back when daddy bush was in power he was an evil dictator, but in the last years of his regime in iraq? no. he was an old, weakened man. all the war did was bring chaos and death to both sides in iraq, and to argue otherwise is ignorant.

I got news for you, the threat that Saddam's regime posed to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia was not based on the man's age or physical strength. Most knowledgable people even from the Clinton administration recognize the huge threat that Saddam posed, and with the containment regime put on him rapidly disapearing, it was vital that he be removed.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Angela Harlem


Actually, it's not just the Democrats in your own country who are utterly disgusted by Bush as a president. A lot of the rest of the world is of the same view.

Yeah, they are also the type of people who equate Saddam with George Bush.

[A_Wanderer]

Originally posted by KhanadaRhodes

arguing that we even needed to go to war in iraq is the first place is ignorant. maybe back when daddy bush was in power he was an evil dictator, but in the last years of his regime in iraq? no. he was an old, weakened man. all the war did was bring chaos and death to both sides in iraq, and to argue otherwise is ignorant.

Do you suppose that it is possible that Saddam wasn't personally running the rape rooms and executing dissidents and their families? Weak old man perhaps but ruler of a police state nonetheless; your post doesn't even go with "he may have been an brutal dictator, but" - it just goes "he may have been a brutal dictator one upon a time".

[BonosSaint]

Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
He would have been booed at Fenway Park yesterday, Bill Buckner wasn't

Game over

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow


I got news for you, the threat that Saddam's regime posed to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia was not based on the man's age or physical strength. Most knowledgable people even from the Clinton administration recognize the huge threat that Saddam posed, and with the containment regime put on him rapidly disapearing, it was vital that he be removed.

i got news for you. what you have done is destroy a totalitarian government and a phony country and created a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic, failed state where the mere avoidance of genocide -- through walled in ghettos and 160,000 American troops -- is cause for celebration.

this is vital?

what you have also done is solidified the idea in the Arab mind that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, and sectarian warfare. and you've empowered Iran and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it ever was with Saddam in power.

it doesn't make any sense to continue to spend billions to prop up and enable a dystopic, ethnically and religiously irraitonal region. it isn't in anyone's interests to do so, certainly not in American interests. there is something else called the GWOT, and blood and treasure spilled and spent and the exhaustion of the military have made the removal of Saddam Hussein far from vital.

it isn't 1998 anymore.

[Strongbow]

Originally posted by Irvine511




i got news for you. what you have done is destroy a totalitarian government and a phony country and created a permanently unstable, fractious, chaotic, failed state where the mere avoidance of genocide -- through walled in ghettos and 160,000 American troops -- is cause for celebration.

this is vital?

what you have also done is solidified the idea in the Arab mind that democracy means chaos, anarchy, mass-murder, and sectarian warfare. and you've empowered Iran and made a wider Sunni-Shiite regional war more likely than it ever was with Saddam in power.

it doesn't make any sense to continue to spend billions to prop up and enable a dystopic, ethnically and religiously irraitonal region. it isn't in anyone's interests to do so, certainly not in American interests. there is something else called the GWOT, and blood and treasure spilled and spent and the exhaustion of the military have made the removal of Saddam Hussein far from vital.

it isn't 1998 anymore.

What is important to the United States and the world in this region? Oil. The planet depends on it for its economic survival. Saddam was a threat to that resource and alternatives to invasion and regime removal were tried and failed to fix the problem. That is why Saddam had to be removed.

But in removing Saddam, the country must be rebuilt in order to prevent similar conditions from developing again. In addition, Iraq is now providing 3% of global oil production and could potentially provide more helping to keep the price of oil from rising faster. The United States has had vital national security interest in the Persian Gulf region for 60 years now and those interest did not suddenly disappear.

The only people who stand to gain from a premature US withdrawal from Iraq are Iran and Al Quada. Allowing Al Quada to gain base in Iraq because of a pre-mature withdrawal is the last thing that would help the GWOT. Iran's influence would only grow stronger in Iraq if the United States were to leave prematurely. Then what are the consequences for Iraq's people if the United States leaves pre-maturely?

You can't make an accurate assessment of what needs to be done when you ignore long standing vital US interest and don't consider the consequences of pre-mature withdrawal.

[anitram]

Originally posted by Strongbow



What is important to the United States and the world in this region? Oil. The planet depends on it for its economic survival. Saddam was a threat to that resource and alternatives to invasion and regime removal were tried and failed to fix the problem. That is why Saddam had to be removed.

At last!

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Strongbow

Then what are the consequences for Iraq's people if the United States leaves pre-maturely?

the only thing that's clear from Petraeus and Crocker's testimony is that they have no idea what's going to happen. that nobody has any idea what's going to happen. and anybody who says they know what will happen as a result of "x" or "y" policy has an agenda. Iraq is a black box. we put one thing in, and we get something quite different out.

what is clear is that the goals of the surge have not been met. and you have failed to provide an endpoint. where does it end? you don't even have a definition for what "pre-maturely" might mean. what's happened is that you're just like Bush. you've argued a flawed policy from the beginning and you've been backed into a corner, and it's arrogance that won't let you deal with reality, and the reality is that the current situation not only isn't working and producing the desired results, but that it isn't sustainable. Bush is going to ride this out because he's giving himself a historical out, but what about the people who are not just dying over there, but paying for all the dying over there?

something is going to have to give, STING.

[Diemen]

Originally posted by Irvine511
you've argued a flawed policy from the beginning and you've been backed into a corner, and it's arrogance that won't let you deal with reality, and the reality is that the current situation not only isn't working and producing the desired results, but that it isn't sustainable.

Well said.

I'd like to see someone on the administration's side give a good explanation of how we can feasibly maintain this operation at this level until results come. Especially since, with so many hands in the cookie jar now (Iran, Sunni, Shia, etc) , we have no reasonable way of predicting if and/or when those results will come. But hey, if it takes 100 years, then think of how satisfying the payoff will surely be!

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by Strongbow


Yeah, they are also the type of people who equate Saddam with George Bush.

When was the last time you really spent some time outside the US? I don't talk your short trip to Ireland, but really some time you spent with people from other countries, and from different parts of the society?
Only a very small percentage of people disgusted by what Bush has been doing over the past few years are sincerely equating him to Saddam. Out of millions that just cannot believe what has been happening to the country many of those admired for so long. And still do.

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Do you suppose that it is possible that Saddam wasn't personally running the rape rooms and executing dissidents and their families? Weak old man perhaps but ruler of a police state nonetheless; your post doesn't even go with "he may have been an brutal dictator, but" - it just goes "he may have been a brutal dictator one upon a time".

i certainly don't disagree with this. others have made their points a bit more eloquently than me, perhaps. but the fact remains that i think we should've had a better strategy as a whole. enter, exit, you name it.

call me selfish, but when i hear of how many people on all sides have died and continue to be killed to this day, i really don't see how this war needed to happen in the first place.

[clipper699]

Originally posted by Strongbow



What is important to the United States and the world in this region? Oil. The planet depends on it for its economic survival. Saddam was a threat to that resource and alternatives to invasion and regime removal were tried and failed to fix the problem. That is why Saddam had to be removed.

But in removing Saddam, the country must be rebuilt in order to prevent similar conditions from developing again. In addition, Iraq is now providing 3% of global oil production and could potentially provide more helping to keep the price of oil from rising faster. The United States has had vital national security interest in the Persian Gulf region for 60 years now and those interest did not suddenly disappear.

The only people who stand to gain from a premature US withdrawal from Iraq are Iran and Al Quada. Allowing Al Quada to gain base in Iraq because of a pre-mature withdrawal is the last thing that would help the GWOT. Iran's influence would only grow stronger in Iraq if the United States were to leave prematurely. Then what are the consequences for Iraq's people if the United States leaves pre-maturely?

You can't make an accurate assessment of what needs to be done when you ignore long standing vital US interest and don't consider the consequences of pre-mature withdrawal.

[Diemen]

Do you have anything to add?

[MrsSpringsteen]

Originally posted by BonosSaint

Thank you, I'm glad someone liked it

I'll tell you what it was like to be there

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by Vincent Vega

Only a very small percentage of people disgusted by what Bush has been doing over the past few years are sincerely equating him to Saddam. Out of millions that just cannot believe what has been happening to the country many of those admired for so long. And still do.

but some people need the lie in order to live with the grand self-delusion.