February 2, 200521 yr He will get credit for what he deserves. If iraq stabilizes, he defintely deserves credit, not all of it, but some. If Iraq is truely stabilized then yes, he deserves the credit from transitioning it from a dictatorship to a democracy. First though, we cant be sure if Iraq truely will end up stable and may not know for a long time. Second, I was referring more to Fishtanks assertion that Bush deserves credit for stabilizing the Mideast which is a massive longshot. Nixon was one of the best presidents this country has ever had Mike Moore calls Nixon the last liberal President. I surprised you would like Nixon. Nixon was very fiscally liberal.
February 2, 200521 yr I for one dont believe that anyone was honestly taking into consideration the well being of the Iraqi people until the invasion began. No matter how good a person you are, everything we were hearing about Iraq was centered around their ties to terrorism and WMD's...not the dire situation of the Iraqis.
February 2, 200521 yr I for one dont believe that anyone was honestly taking into consideration the well being of the Iraqi people until the invasion began. No matter how good a person you are, everything we were hearing about Iraq was centered around their ties to terrorism and WMD's...not the dire situation of the Iraqis. 674672[/snapback] Exactly. That ate me up more than anything because I knew that they really didnt care about the Iraqi people. They just used them to call the opposition to the war things such as pro-genocide. Ultimately such flakiness undercuts true plights...which clearly it did here. Plus you can always blame the Iraqi people when things go wrong and call them ungrateful...which they are doing now.
February 2, 200521 yr Author Not me, I wanted justice, not WMDs. 674660[/snapback] Justice for what? 9-11? 674664[/snapback] For the decades of horse s*** that the common Iraqi underwent.
February 2, 200521 yr Not me, I wanted justice, not WMDs. 674660[/snapback] Justice for what? 9-11? 674664[/snapback] For the decades of horse s*** that the common Iraqi underwent. 674679[/snapback] The problem is, and Im not accusing you, but a lot of people didnt know s*** about the average Iraqi until Bush told them. Now there are a lot of things going and people still dont care. If people want to help thus under genocide, then be consistent. Notice nobody really wants justice for all the other genocide happening these days?
February 2, 200521 yr Not me, I wanted justice, not WMDs. 674660[/snapback] Where's your outrage about Sudan, Sierra Leone, the rest of the Middle East, Zimbabwe, etc.? I guess they don't deserve justice because they don't have the natural resources to make them worthy of a war and occupation? :plain The only reason you're so outraged is because the GOP told you to do so or else you'd be a bad American. Was Iraq a hellhole under Saddam? Yes. Are there countries out there with worse atrocities committed against their people? Yes.
February 2, 200521 yr Not me, I wanted justice, not WMDs. 674660[/snapback] Where's your outrage about Sudan, Sierra Leone, the rest of the Middle East, Zimbabwe, etc.? I guess they don't deserve justice because they don't have the natural resources to make them worthy of a war and occupation? :plain 674683[/snapback] Bill Clinton and the UN did great in leaving a huge mess around the world. It seems the UN has concluded recently there has been no genocide in the Darfur region. Leave it to the UN to get things done!!! :plain
February 2, 200521 yr Not me, I wanted justice, not WMDs. 674660[/snapback] Where's your outrage about Sudan, Sierra Leone, the rest of the Middle East, Zimbabwe, etc.? I guess they don't deserve justice because they don't have the natural resources to make them worthy of a war and occupation? :plain 674683[/snapback] Bill Clinton and the UN did great in leaving a huge mess around the world. It seems the UN has concluded recently there has been no genocide in the Darfur region. Leave it to the UN to get things done!!! :plain 674688[/snapback] What does that have to do with Bush and the rhetoric of helping oppressed people? Sudan is going on right now, so is Saudi Arabia...why isnt Bush doing anything?
February 2, 200521 yr Author I am no loyalist of the GOP and I'll say what I've said before again. I'm all for going into all countries where genocide is occuring. One hundred percent. Unfortunately, we lack the ability to do it effectively alone, hence the reason I'm not shouting for invasions across the globe. The United States has taken on the task that the United Nations was intended to have, and it's unfortunate. I wish that other nations across the world would help us eliminate despotism across the globe but it seems like they're too afraid to cross the line from neutrality to impopularity. I might sound a tad altruistic but that's the way I see it. Now, I ask you, if a world leader went around into all the places, Darfur, Sierra Leone, etc, would you, as liberals, oppose it as an act of aggression, or actually stand by what is supposed to be a passion of the left: freeing people and establishing equal rights and opportunities all around the world?
February 2, 200521 yr Now, I ask you, if a world leader went around into all the places, Darfur, Sierra Leone, etc, would you, as liberals, oppose it as an act of aggression, or actually stand by what is supposed to be a passion of the left: freeing people and establishing equal rights and opportunities all around the world? http://www.amnesty.org/ A liberal organization.
February 2, 200521 yr Not me, I wanted justice, not WMDs. 674660[/snapback] Where's your outrage about Sudan, Sierra Leone, the rest of the Middle East, Zimbabwe, etc.? I guess they don't deserve justice because they don't have the natural resources to make them worthy of a war and occupation? :plain 674683[/snapback] Bill Clinton and the UN did great in leaving a huge mess around the world. It seems the UN has concluded recently there has been no genocide in the Darfur region. Leave it to the UN to get things done!!! :plain 674688[/snapback] whether or not the UN sees Sudan as a genocide, they have already both on their own and with the help of other nations helped to distribute humanitarian aid to the affected regions. You don't need to have a genocide to do good.
February 2, 200521 yr Author Now, I ask you, if a world leader went around into all the places, Darfur, Sierra Leone, etc, would you, as liberals, oppose it as an act of aggression, or actually stand by what is supposed to be a passion of the left: freeing people and establishing equal rights and opportunities all around the world? http://www.amnesty.org/ A liberal organization. 674698[/snapback] So be it I am within no party lines.
February 2, 200521 yr Now, I ask you, if a world leader went around into all the places, Darfur, Sierra Leone, etc, would you, as liberals, oppose it as an act of aggression, or actually stand by what is supposed to be a passion of the left: freeing people and establishing equal rights and opportunities all around the world? 674693[/snapback] I won't call myself a liberal, but I will say that I would agree with the US going after all the lunatics in Sudan, Sierra Leone, Saudi Arabia, etc. I just think that going into Iraq under pretenses of finding WMDs is weak and then later saying it was just to help the poor Iraqis. If you're going to go there and the reasons seem apparent (like oil or diamonds), just say so because, like our mothers all taught us when we were young, "Honesty is the best policy." Wouldn't it have been easier for Dubya to just say something about that instead of going the high and mighty/fear-inducing route?
February 2, 200521 yr Some people fail to realize that we need to fix our problems at home before we run around solving the world's problems. This war has badly damaged our reputation abroad. Why do you think Indonesia wanted us out quickly, after we had helped them with the tsunami recovery operations? Because they were afraid that we wouldn't leave when we were asked to. As other members have stated before I, there are many other countries with dictators and atrocities that rival Saddam Hussein's former regime around the world. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, how many countries will we have to invade before we're finished?
February 2, 200521 yr It's amazing how liberals fail to recongize anything positive Bush does. If it turns out we might have won in Iraq after its, "Well, uh, Bush hasn't fixed the problems in Sudan." Sure Bush needs to address it- But why do liberals refuse to acknoweldge anything positive the administration does anymore and try to find something negative? I'm sure its not pure partianship. :mischief
February 2, 200521 yr It's amazing how liberals fail to recongize anything positive Bush does. If it turns out we might have won in Iraq after its, "Well, uh, Bush hasn't fixed the problems in Sudan." Sure Bush needs to address it- But why do liberals refuse to acknoweldge anything positive the administration does anymore and try to find something negative? I'm sure its not pure partianship. :mischief 674770[/snapback] You're just evading the whole damned entire thing.
February 2, 200521 yr It's amazing how liberals fail to recongize anything positive Bush does.? If it turns out we might have won in Iraq after its, "Well, uh, Bush hasn't fixed the problems in Sudan."? Sure Bush needs to address it- But why do liberals refuse to acknoweldge anything positive the administration does anymore and try to find something negative?? I'm sure its not pure partianship.? :mischief 674770[/snapback] You're just evading the whole damned entire thing. 674774[/snapback] Evading seems more like a thread being made about Bush's accomplishments and liberals coming in to change the subject just to criticize him.
February 2, 200521 yr It's amazing how liberals fail to recongize anything positive Bush does. If it turns out we might have won in Iraq after its, "Well, uh, Bush hasn't fixed the problems in Sudan." Sure Bush needs to address it- But why do liberals refuse to acknoweldge anything positive the administration does anymore and try to find something negative? I'm sure its not pure partianship. :mischief 674770[/snapback] You're just evading the whole damned entire thing. 674774[/snapback] Evading seems more like a thread being made about Bush's accomplishments and liberals coming in to change the subject just to criticize him. 674779[/snapback] Don't you understand that he made up false reasons to go to war, when he knew they were wrong? Then after we find no WMD's, he makes sure to divert attention to Saddam Hussein's regime.
February 2, 200521 yr It's amazing how liberals fail to recongize anything positive Bush does.? If it turns out we might have won in Iraq after its, "Well, uh, Bush hasn't fixed the problems in Sudan."? Sure Bush needs to address it- But why do liberals refuse to acknoweldge anything positive the administration does anymore and try to find something negative?? I'm sure its not pure partianship.?? :mischief 674770[/snapback] You're just evading the whole damned entire thing. 674774[/snapback] Evading seems more like a thread being made about Bush's accomplishments and liberals coming in to change the subject just to criticize him. 674779[/snapback] You wanna give him credit and we wanna expose him as a fraud. Seems you cant really defend the guy.
February 2, 200521 yr Don't you understand that he made up false reasons to go to war, when he knew they were wrong? Then after we find no WMD's, he makes sure to divert attention to Saddam Hussein's regime. 674792[/snapback] At least you're addressing the topic. Bush didn't make up the WMD story. German, Russian, Italian, American, some other countries intelligence said they were there(and they could still be Syria according to Dalfour report). Bush never wanted to go Iraq for WMD's, he just used it to get the Canadianesque UN to go along with the war. At the time, it was a perfectly fine strategy, since there was strong evidence of WMD's. The whole point of the war was to topple the regime, there was no diverting attention to it. Now the country is much better off, and I find it sickening liberals refuse to realize.
February 2, 200521 yr It's amazing how liberals fail to recongize anything positive Bush does. If it turns out we might have won in Iraq after its, "Well, uh, Bush hasn't fixed the problems in Sudan." Sure Bush needs to address it- But why do liberals refuse to acknoweldge anything positive the administration does anymore and try to find something negative? I'm sure its not pure partianship. :mischief 674770[/snapback] I'm sure you'll have an answer of some sort, but specifically regarding Iraq, what positive things has the Bush administration done that it planned to do when it was invading?
February 2, 200521 yr Don't you understand that he made up false reasons to go to war, when he knew they were wrong? Then after we find no WMD's, he makes sure to divert attention to Saddam Hussein's regime. 674792[/snapback] At least you're addressing the topic. Bush didn't make up the WMD story. German, Russian, Italian, American, some other countries intelligence said they were there(and they could still be Syria according to Dalfour report). Bush never wanted to go Iraq for WMD's, he just used it to get the Canadianesque UN to go along with the war. At the time, it was a perfectly fine strategy, since there was strong evidence of WMD's. The whole point of the war was to topple the regime, there was no diverting attention to it. Now the country is much better off, and I find it sickening liberals refuse to realize. 674813[/snapback] How can you possibly know that????
February 2, 200521 yr what positive things has the Bush administration done that it planned to do when it was invading? 674815[/snapback] Well, the administration planned on toppling Saddam and having free elections when it invaded. Now what happened on Sunday in Iraq?
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.