American elections 2004

And billions of dollars of oil in Iraq is just a coincidence? How is that not getting something back?

 

And the contract to rebuild Iraq going to an American company...
(cynical me!)

 

Yeah, KKlover, your point seems a little off the mark here. Of course the USA aren't trying to rule the world physically, because they already are damn near to such domination economically; they couldn't gain more from actually conquering the countries they trade with that they don't already gain by their economic position. But you can't deny that what the US does in Iraq and even in Afghanistan is not entirely free of their own wishes and needs.
Furthermore, I always consider help to come at call of those in need. But Iraq never called for help. Meaning that the USA provide "help" when and where it suits them.

SgtBob, indeed I was born the year Bush Sr took over so I can't remember Reagan. However, I have heard of him what you just told me, and it seems his hard policy worked on the SU and solved many of the problems of his time thereby. But to compare Bush to him would mean that you think Bush is facing a power so great that only an international policy of war and muscle-showing will bring them down. This is not a belief I share.

 

Actually, whether or not Reagan's policies hastened the demise of the USSR is still being debated by historians.
Sadly the image has recently been clouded by his death, and the flood of eulogies that sparked.
All of them appeared to follow the principal that you should not speak ill of the dead (a trait based on the superstitious belief that if you did, the dead will come back & haunt you). For example, nobody seemed to point out little facts like a quadrupling of America's national debt (to $4 trillion!). This idea of not speaking ill about the dead is rather daft, as this should mean that we cannot criticise Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, etc. (obviously not comparing Reagan to any of those!).
Reagan was not the all-perfect, pure & mighty President that so many people today see him as being.

My tuppance-worth!

 

But of course he made it seem so with extraordinary skill. At least he could act just well enough to be a politician.

 

I should hope so!

 

I know some try to debate the issue, but have no doubts whatsoever. His rebuilding of the U.S. military, combined with proposing and starting 'Star Wars', had the Soviets scared to death. Not scared that we were going to conquer them but that they would become a second rate power. When they tried to turn up their sick economy to match the U.S. effort, the whole house of cards crumbled.

The U.S. National Debt ballooned during his terms because our Congress, which actually has to propose all spending bills, couldn't control itself. The amount of incoming revenue to the gov't nearly doubled during his eight years. While Reagan increased defense spending by considerable amounts, the domestic spending ballooned even faster. Reagan could be criticised for not pushing the issue hard enough, but then he was already being bad-mouthed as uncaring regarding the poor.

 

Well re:Afghanistan and Iraq, it's sort of hard to call for help when your governments are run by radical Muslims and a petty dictator.

Bush is facing a power that may well rival the old Soviet Union, Radical Muslim Fundamentalism, the main force of international terrorism right now.

 

Yes, he is. And I don't hear any of Mr. Bush's critics coming up with any viable solutions.

 

If help is needed badly enough, people will find a way. They're smart enough to bypass a dictator, or to send out messages over intrackable lines, or to make their ambassadors/immigrants/whoever speak for them. There are ways, and a country in dire straits will use them. Yet neither Iraq nor Afghanistan have used them, and it is my opinion that no other county may decide when another needs help.

But this is not a huge and advanced military force organized by a powerful country with the means and the experience to overrun half the world and take the rest hostage, like the SU really was. Therefore it requires an entirely different way to be dealt with (and indeed Corp, I have no idea how ) and apparently the way Bush uses is aming things worse.

 

Take a deep breath here guys - I'm going to defend America!

Actually the Kurds, and Iraqi immigrants etc overseas (we have plenty in London) all called long & loud for the deposition of Saddam.

The problem most folks have with the Iraqi war is that for whatever reason, Bush & Blair decided to go (officially) with the WMD reason for war. Many people seriously doubted at the time (and this has got worse!) that this was a valid reason.
Politicians should learn (see Watergate, Lewinski, et al) people don't really seem to mind what governments do so much, provided they do not lie. That really pisses the populace off.

My optimistic side says 'education'
My pessimistic side says 'this ain't gonna happen. These kids like that 15-year old attempted suicide-bomber in Israel are just gonna keep being indoctrinated with hate'

 

At the moment there isn't a viable solution, because the structure of discipline has been removed.

That doesn't mean it wa the correct and only course of action. To win a war take huge amounts of hi-tech weaponary and destroy the enemy, Yes it is that simple, however, this is not a conventional war, the enemy is not a conventional enemy and the claimed outcome is completely different.

I as a soldier support the troops on the ground, but I don't support the war for 2 reasons.

1. The lies told for the reasons to go to war.

2. Secondly the way it was conducted.

The lies we all know, however, no thought was given to the aftermath of the conflict, no thought was given to the possible consequences. the American attitude at first was we are not a police force, however, if you take out the legitimate policing authority (be it good or bad) you have a reponsibility to the people. Many thousands of iraqis have been killed through this action. if the US had persuaded the UN to agree with it then a police force could have been waiting in the wings to follow the troops through. As there was no true credible threat then time could have been taken to construct a true reason to depose Saddam, using some of the hundreds of billions of dollars used to fight the war being used to better the world may and probably would have given a greater backing for the war. All the war has don't is put any WMD that were around into the hands of terrorist, and creted more hatred for the US and Britain so making a bigger terrorist threat.

 

And unfortunately the Americans made the mistake of promising goals that were not achieved - even quite minor stuff like how soon power would be restored to Iraqi homes. If you go in, remove a tyrant, hold to your promises, and respect the traditions/culture of the country, you will achieve great goodwill.
If you achieve step 1 but bugger up steps 2 and/or 3, a heck of a lot of that goodwill goes. People will be suffering more actual day-to-day hardship in their lives (eg: no power, even though the American promisd it would be on last Thursday), and in those situations the past can seem very rosy (if we kept our heads down, nothing would happen, we were fine & had power. These stupid foriegn infidel, coming here, shooting my countrymen, interfering with our way of life, depriving us of power, etc etc)

To rule out any confusion - power here refers to Electricity!

 

Politicians must rely on what their people tell them. Multiple sources have stated that Bush was wary of the evidence presented concerning WMDs, but CIA's Tenet (Clinton holdover) said it was a "slam dunk". Add to that the fairly new info from Putin (of all people) that Soviet intel reported possible plans for U.S. terrorist attacks planned in Iraq and there is no evidence that Bush lied. If our leftists beat the drum about the sloppiness of the Bush administration instead of the lies, they might have won this next election. Now, as more and more information comes out, they make themselves look extreme.

Yes, I think the U.S. did promise too much too quickly in the way of rebuilding Iraq, and underestimated the possibility of a messy occupation. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of Rumsfeld (U.S. Defense Secretary and not a Clinton holdover) and he was/is the primary planner for the war.

 

The administrations lied!!! only politican talk says otherwise.

 

Oh no, not again! If you'd have just said that Tenet made the mistake of convincing Bush that the information presented to him was false, then I'd have been right there with you blaming him for a great deal of what happened next. But because you had to remark that he was someone put in office by the Clinton administration, you made him look like a leftist fool put there by more leftist fools, thereby drawing everyone in against you. This is sheer polarisation, and not the way to make an argument. It doesn't matter who put him in office, if he's incompetent why didn't Bush remove him? Both parties take part of the blame here and calling each other names isn't taking you anywhere.

I oppose Bush, his government and his policies, but have I ever siad that the left would do any better? I sure shouldn't have if I did (and I can't remember ever doing it) because I wouldn't know. The solution for the problems Bush made are hard to find, and the same appears to be so from what you tell me of those Clinton made.

 

Well said Roel, There is now no easy solution, the only real solution is to remain in Iraq and to build up a new force. This will obviously take time and keep the terrorism in Iraq for the time being. However, IMHO when the coalition leave then the government will soon be taken over by the clerics and I see an Iranian type administration.

 

Yes, the Americans sure didn't prepare the Iraqi people for anything. They just came. Now all hell will break loose because the Iraqis aren't ready to govern themselves and any strong-minded fundamentalist can just sieze power as soon as the Americans leave. There's a clear case of irony, isn't there?

 

The fact that Tenet was a holdover from Clinton's administration is totally germane to any arguments regarding Bush's decisions. Bush can be criticized for choosing to keep him, but not as harshly as those people he chose himself (such as Rumsfeld). The CIA director is the one who ultimately sorts through the intel and decides what is going to be seen by the President. When he states WMDs are a "slam dunk", it is indeed a serious matter.

I never said Tenet was a leftist fool. He was just chosen by a leftist fool.

 

But that doesn't matter does it?! We're not discussing Clinton's wrong decisions where, but the outcome of the coming US election. So any points for and against Bush, in relation to his chances in November, are welcome - but no need for leftist fools bashing.