Bush in Iraq

no happy democRATS bashing bush?

the war is going so bad, we are losing in iraq… oh doom and gloom… pull out now because we can’t do anything right with bush…

see you in november

-Imp

Why would the demos be bashing Bush going to Iraq? If there is any bitching to be done, it will only be because they won’t keep him. At some point, he’ll be back… damn the luck!

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

What bashing is to be done? Many liberals quail over the fact that we went into another country to enforce our views and our way of life upon them. And yep, we did - and it’s a good thing, too. Saddam sucks, and admittedly we’re doing a shitty job restructing their govt. and making them self-sufficient. But it’s still a good motive - giving those people a 100-year boost into the political future that they couldn’t’ve achieved on their own.

Were we morally right to go into Iraq? You can make arguments against it, but I don’t think you can instantly condemn it.

But that’s only scratching the surface.

Does Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Not at all. Was there any hard evidence even at the time to suggest otherwise? No. All evidence points to Bush using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, possibly to retain post-disaster popularity, or possibly to appease those in the Project for the New American Century http://www.newamericancentury.org/.

Moreso, what has Bush done right? There was good intelligence on 9/11 before it happened, and we did nothing. The NSA wiretapping story was fire across the newspaper for a few days, and then was silent - where has all the fury gone? Bush has upped the national debt to the worst in history immediately after it was the lowest it had been in a very long time. And that’s entirely putting aside mounting evidence of election fraud in 2004 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen, piled on top of already very significant evidence of election fraud in 2000.

And the last point: even if Bush had been fairly elected, it is still the case that he was elected more on the basis of “I’d rather sit down and have a beer with him than I would with Kerry” (and few would disagree with that). The sad fact is that after JFK, a president who was attractive, well-spoken, and personable, we became spoiled, and the old middle-school phenomenon, where the most popular guy became class president, began again to take hold. The sadder fact is, even taking into account the massive evidence of voter fraud in 2004, the exit polls still show an estimated 46% of Americans voting for Bush. Not at all enough to put him in office; but enough of a clear failure of the democratic system (namely, allowing people with poor decision-making skills to vote) to make one wish for Plato’s Philosopher King.[/url]

=D> =D> =D>

Bush in Iraq was only about creating photo’s ops.
It is just part of the GOPers new public relations
campaign. The village idiots news conference today
is further proof of this new PR campaign.
This administration will continue its war on the
middle and working class of america.
Its too bad people don’t see it for what it is.

Kropotkin

no, it’s too bad for democRATS that people see EXACTLY what it is.

-Imp

Imp/Pete,

This is beyond Democrat/Republican.

What Bush is doing will echo for years after. Even if Hillary or some other democrat gets in it doesn’t really matter because she’ll just have to pick up the shitstick where Bush has dropped it.

The divide isn’t so much liberal/conversative as it is informed/uninformed. Iran will be the exact same as Iraq. We’ll be saying ‘well… yeah we shouldn’t have gone in, what was the reason again? oh yeah… 9/11/Something big in the near future.’ Either way it’ll be unrelated.

Just because a place isn’t what the US deems as ‘worthy’ not to be invaded, doesn’t mean we should be invading. Saddam was bad sure, but there are plenty of fuckjobs out there worse than him. The only reason we don’t touch them is because it makes us money.

It’s ALWAYS about money. Any talk about Terrrorism or fear of being attacked is so fucking ridiculous is makes me want to puke. Who eclipses the WORLD put together when it comes to Terrorism in the truest definition of the word? The United States. Where are you more likely to be killed by your own government (ala 9/11) than any other country? The United States. Who is barely smart enough to hide their covert shit from the dumber half of the population? The United States.

Lol… “Shitstick” :slight_smile:

Apple.

There is a market for fear.

Apple.

You will like this Imp:
Yes all, I want us to win and the Insurrents to lose.

Signs of success in Iraq

Jun 15, 2006
by Jeff Jacoby ( bio | archive | contact )

When Iraq’s Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki announced last week that a US air strike had killed terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi reporters burst into cheers. It was a heartwarming – and to American eyes, unnatural – show of joy. Most American journalists would think it unseemly to cheer anything said at a press conference, including the news that a sadistic mass murderer had finally met his end.

Important and welcome as Zarqawi’s assassination was, it didn’t put a dent in the quagmire-of-the-week mindset that depicts the war as a fiasco wrapped in a scandal inside a failure. Typical of the prevailing pessimism was the glum Page One headline in The Washington Post the morning after Maliki’s announcement: “After Zarqawi, No Clear Path In Weary Iraq.”

Virtually from day one, the media have reported this war as a litany of gloom and doom. Images of violence and destruction dominate the TV coverage. Analysts endlessly second-guess every military and political decision. Allegations of wrongdoing by US soldiers get far more play than tales of their heroism and generosity. No wonder more than half of the public now believes that a war that ended one of the most evil dictatorships of our time was a mistake.

Some of this defeatism was inevitable, given the journalistic predisposition for bad news. (“If it bleeds, it leads.”) And some of it was a function of the newsroom’s left-wing bias – many journalists oppose the war and revile the Bush administration, and their coverage often reflects that hostility.

But there have also been highly negative assessments of the war from observers who can’t be accused of habitual nay saying or Bush-bashing. In a dispiriting piece that appeared on the day Zarqawi’s death was announced, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that “in Iraq at the moment . . . savagery seems to be triumphing over decency.” There may be no way to win this war without becoming as monstrous and cruel as the terrorists, he suggested, which is why “most Americans simply want to get away.”

Another thoughtful commentator, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, had been even more despairing one day earlier: “This is an Iraqi nightmare,” he wrote, “and America seems powerless to stop it.”

But not everyone is so hopeless.

In the June issue of Commentary, veteran Middle East journalist Amir Taheri describes “The Real Iraq” as a far more promising place than the horror show of conventional media wisdom. Arriving in the United States after his latest tour of Iraq, Taheri says, he was “confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable” – an image that “grossly . . . distorts the realities of present-day Iraq.”

What are those realities? Drawing on nearly 40 years of observing Iraq first-hand, Taheri points to several leading indicators that he says he has always found reliable in gauging the country’s true condition.

He begins with refugees. In the past, one could always tell that life in Iraq was growing desperate by the long lines of Iraqis trying to escape over the Iranian and Turkish borders. “Since the toppling of Saddam in 2003,” Taheri notes, “this is one highly damaging image we have not seen on our television sets – and we can be sure that we would be seeing it if it were there to be shown.” Instead of fleeing the “nightmare” that Iraq has supposedly become, Iraqi refugees have been returning, more than 1.2 million of them as of last December.

A second indicator is the pilgrim traffic to the Shi’ite shrines in Karbala and Najaf. Those pilgrimages all but dried up after Saddam bloodily crushed a Shi’ite uprising in 1991, and they didn’t resume until the arrival of the Americans in 2003. “In 2005,” writes Taheri, “the holy sites received an estimated 12 million pilgrims, making them the most-visited spots in the entire Muslim world, ahead of both Mecca and Medina.”

A third sign: the value of the Iraqi dinar. All but worthless during Saddam’s final years, the dinar is today a safe and solid medium of exchange, and has been rising in value against other currencies. Related indicators are small-business activity, which is booming, and Iraqi agriculture, which has experienced a revival so remarkable that Iraq now exports food to its neighbors for the first time since the 1950s.

Finally, says Taheri, there is the willingness of Iraqis to speak their minds. Iraqis are very verbal, and “when they fall silent, life is incontrovertibly becoming hard for them.” Such silence was not uncommon under Saddam, when many Iraqis were afraid to express any political opinion. They aren’t silent now. In addition to talk radio, Internet blogs, and lively debates everywhere, “a vast network of independent media has emerged in Iraq, including over 100 privately owned newspapers and magazines and more than two dozen radio and television stations.” Nowhere in the Arab world is freedom of expression more robust.

As Congress engages in its own wide-ranging Iraq debate this week, Taheri’s essay is well worth reading. “Yes, the situation in Iraq today is messy,” he writes. “Births always are. Since when is that a reason to declare a baby unworthy of life?”

Jeff Jacoby is an Op-Ed writer for the Boston Globe, a radio political commentator, and a contributing columnist for Townhall.com.

Possibly in the form of Jeb. :sunglasses:

Oh sure, aspacia. Go ahead and ruin my day… :laughing:

You might find this opposing opinion interesting: townhall.com/opinion/column/ … 98693.html Consider both sides. Also, BBC’s Nighline claims that Bush and company planned on nailing down Iraqi oil a long time ago. Do I trust Wbya, hell no, think he is corrupt, but, many did believe Saddam had WMD’s. This was trashed by Blix, who admitted that his gut told him Saddam had the WMD’s, but he could not find them. Also, others argue that they were sent to Syria prior to the invasion. A peer who taught in Saudi Arabia claims that the Saudis believe Saddam shipped the WMD’s to Syria as well.

Hell, will we ever know. So much is classified and major cover ups occur.

It died because most US citizens support the wiretaps. The media backed off as their ratings are taking a major beating.

Yes, and the GOP is furious regarding this. No, I am not a Republican.

Hum, I haven’t delved into this much.

Yes, and Wbya plays this to the hilt.

The ultimate cold warrior whose favorite author was Ian Flemming, James Bond. JFK won the Electoral College, not the popular vote, which I believe is true of Bush Jr. JFK also took pain killers for his back.

[/quote]

Hum, should all be required to pass a test to vote, This was done in the South to disenfranchise Blacks. Perhaps, just a basic 10th grade reading, writing, arithmatic test? Do not know. What about those who suffer from dyslexia and other learning handicaps?

With regards,

aspacia :sunglasses:

Twiffy,

Okay, which article were you referring to? There are many on the site you posted and one is 108 pages long.

Help,

aspacia :confused:

Iraq is, and will be, a crushing defeat. It’s Vietnam, it’s Soviet Afghanistan, and no one will recognize the facts, and dispense with partisan opinion for objectivity:

These people do not understand, or accept, the ideological concept of “free men”.

They have lived under tribal warlords law since sedentary communities came into being. It is their way of life, as is strife, dissention and warfare. No amount of capitalism or partisanship will change that, unless they willingly change their entire base belief systems.

Good luck. We can continue this discourse in the future, when we receive those letters stating Social Security has collapsed, and your old person’s check isn’t coming.

Mas!

Don’t you start messing with my social security check! I’ll whack you with my cane! :laughing:

That is what the British said regarding the American Revolution, as we had always been governed by a monarch. My other half tends to agree with you, and I am hoping we win, they lose. Some good news:
mcall.com/news/opinion/anoth … erview-hed

Allah’s laws, implemented by humans. Some Muslim views:
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89252

There is much anger and hate fostered by their religious and government lleaders regarding the West and Israel. They may change, they may not. Remember how bad the Christian world was for 1500 years. This may not occur in our life time. The problem is, that we do not have 500 years for them to reform themselves, as they are trying to nuke us or use WMD’s. Read their media.

Some government controlled Arab media sources are publishing articles regarding the problems in the Arab World, and this includes Arab News, a Saudi source. Of course there are huge tracks blaming all their problems on the West and Israel.

Yes, Social Security is a problem, but I do not Bush’s plans for fixing the system, especially since he wants to add a few million illegals to the dole.

Mastriani, I am a huge cynic, as are you, but I do want what is best for the USA. We broke Iraq, we are morally obligated to fix it. Also, most Iraqis do not want us to leave, as they know it will lead to a blood bath.

With regards,

aspacia

Mastriani: Iraq is, and will be, a crushing defeat. It’s Vietnam, it’s Soviet Afghanistan, and no one will recognize the facts, and dispense with partisan opinion for objectivity:

K: agreed. I see many ugly parallels to Vietnam.

I did some research.
The Iraqi war so far has lasted for 3 years and 89 days.

Did you know that World War 2,
only lasted (for U.S.) 4 years and 251 days.

The united states civil war lasted 3 days shy of 4 years,
3 years and 362 days.

World war one (again, only for U.S.) 1 year and 219 days

The revolutionary war officially lasted for 8 years and 95 days,
but in reality ended 2 years earlier, so roughly 6 years.

Vietnam lasted for 9 years and 174 days.

And the spanish American war… 233 days.

So if the village idiot does not bring the troops home
in his term,( which ends Jan 20, 2008), this war will
become one of the longer wars in U.S. history
5 years and 306 days. Which is longer then
our involvement in both world wars and the civil war.

Both World one and World war two combined is 6 years and
105 days.

The war in Iraq could quite easily last longer
then our involvement in both world wars.

Are you afraid yet?

Kropotkin

It’s funny that Petey boy here should mention these other American wars. When I saw him listing them I thought to myself, “He couldn’t be…no, that would ruin it!”

You see my friends, I thought that Peter was about to start listing the casualties during these wars except that wouldn’t help his arguement becuase Iraq war casualties pale in comparison to our own Civil War. The Union would have BEGGED for 2500 dead at the Battle of Bull run.