American elections 2004

I agree, Roel, except that there seems to be a lot of Bush bashing going on here, rather than a calm, reasonable discussion of the facts. Certain people here keep kneejerking whenever someone tries to say anything positive about Mr. Bush, or suggests that he is not 100% responsible for the decision to enter Iraq and everything that has happened there since then. He did make the decison, of course, based on what he was told by his advisers, and he does bear command responsibility in his role as commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces. Mistakes were made in Iraq, but he is not responsible for all of them, unless you intend to hold him responsible for what every private there does. His intentions were good, I believe, although I will be the first to admit that a lot of graves have been filled by good intentions. And Clinton's role must be factored into this discussion, because there is evidence that it was his lack of response (or ineffective response when one was made) that emboldened Osama bin Laden and his cohorts to make the September 11th attack, which got all of this mess started. Had that attack never taken place, Iraq most likely would never have been invaded. Nor Afghanistan, for that matter.

Now, I am not saying that Mr. Bush is the greatest president the USA has ever had; I know better than that. To me, however, he is a good, Christian man who found that war and foreign policy in general are a lot more complex than he initially believed. And I also believe that his advisers must share in the blame for the troubles in Iraq.

 

I can agree with you on the angle that Bush cannot be held responsible for every incident the happens in Iraq, however, it is plain to see that the situation caused through the ill advised invasion/liberation or what ever you wish to call it, requires the help of the internation comunity. To that end Bush refuses to ask help but demands it. His placed people give the majority of contracts to American compnies, All the world outside America only see Bs looking out for his own and demanding that the rest of the world help him do so.

Maybe a little humility from this good Christian man may make the rest of the world see his good Christian values.

Sorry but I don't see it.

That goes for Blair too.

 

But have you even looked, GP? I get the impression from your posts that you haven't, and that you are not interested in looking, either. And I see evidence of his humility all the time.

 

Ever heard of crocodile tears, well he has crocodile humility.

He acts out humility but doesn't show it.

Yes he comes on T.V. and says how humble he is but his actions do not give the same impression, there is a mismatch, don't get me wrong Blair is the same.

I'm a soldier who has taken the Queens shilling and will fight for the freedom of the world if I am told to do so, but, the way Bush, Rumsfeld or who ever, is conducting the war on terrorism is not making the world or America safer. Nor is it creating Freedom. Yes for a short period of time some people in Afghanistan and Iraq will have freedom for a period of time but the regimes to come will be as bad.

I hope that I am wrong and will apologise unreservedly if I am. (I apologise now if I am wrong as it will be several decades before anyone is proved correct).

 

Where?
(to give a chance to defend Bush!)

 

Yes, maybe you are right, but the moderators try to keep it as peaceful as we can percieve it. Also, you must consider that Bush is the topic at hand here, not Clinton; naturally Bush gets more ciriticism than his predecessor because he is involved in more recent issues, and is directly spoken of here. And another thing, I would like to point out that the knee-jerking comes from both sides. As much as the leftists among us attack Bush and his defenders, so much do the rightists defend him.

You may be right about Bush that he is a good but ignorant man who means well but just doesn't know how it really works. But that doesn't take away possible criticism of his actions, because it's not about what he's like, it's about what he does. And it's much harder to see the good side of that.

 

The Bush-bashers of the world (and U.S.) wish carte-blanche to criticize Bush about Iraq, but want to say everything else is off topic. I'm sorry, most of this is all interrelated. When accusing that Bush and his crew lied about WMD intel, it automatically makes Clinton, the UN, and most of Europe guilty of the same thing, since they were saying the same things. Now if we wish to talk strategies that could have been used different from invasion, then Bush alone can be the subject.

"A useful dunce" was used to describe Ronald Reagan in the 80's. And he had excellent communication skills (unlike Bush). I find the arrogance Bush is accused of actually comes from the other direction. If Bush was as wise or as cultured as we, he wouldn't be doing this or that. If Bush won't play ball by the 'old boys' rules, well then they'll just take their ball and go home.

I will agree that we shouldn't ask for help in Iraq from anyone who wasn't on board from the beginning. That way it's our boat, sink or swim. And thereby anyone who wasn't there from the beginning gets nothing of benefit if/when things are successful.

 

Agreed. The situation in Iraq is just as complex in its origins and background as WW2. Limiting discussion to Mr. Bush alone isn't fair or accurate.

 

Stop that! Don't try to find any similarities between the war in iraq and the Second World War! I've heard more than enough of that at the D-Day remmebrance ceremonies and I couldn't stand it then, I won't let you do it now. The situation in Iraq is complex, and it won't and can't be solved easily, but that doesn't mean that it is in any way to be compared to the war that shaped this century because that is what WW2 was. No matter how the US gets itself entangled in the net of the Middle East because Bush wants action instead of diplomacy (an understandable position), it will remain a local event and I doubt it will change much of the rest of the world or of history. And don't come up with oil arguments against me, because we still get oil, so what.

The origins and background of WW2 stretch all across the globe and involve pretty much every country on it; it determined the look of the world for forty years, and the way it looks today would never have been the same without that war. The situataion in Iraq, however complex, is not that complex, end of story.

I agree with SgtBob that we can't blame all the problems of today on Bush. That was a very good remark, because I have been wrongly doing just that. But you dragged Clinton in by the hairs, simply because he had installed a secret service man who had then misled Bush about the WMD so that he started a war - isn't that a bit far-fetched? He takes part of the blame, but I don't think that part is significant enough to involve him in a discussion about the US elections. After all, he's not participating, is he?

 

The Brits were there from the beginning withthe second largest force, but we get very little of the prime contracts.

 

But if the boats sinks then the mess will create an even bigger mess. The new Iraq has to succeed or the world and in particular the U.K. and U.S. are in for a bigger bang.

The International community needs to be courted to put in place elements which the U.K. and U.S. cannot put in place. Any government put in place or sanctioned by the coalition will be percieved as an American puppet regieme, maybe if a joint muslim police force could be brought in en mass then it would help restore order quicker. I know thinks are happening which the press do not see or report but the troubles will last for a very long time. I am not talking weeks or months but years.

 

Couldn't agree more. The US and to a lesse extent the UK have been making a very bad name for themselves, unintentionally, because of how they are shown to the world and partially because of what they do, too (no point denying it). Now they need to put up a much greater effort for them to be restored to their former status in diplomacy.

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

You may have a point there, GP.

 

Reread my post, Roel; I said that the "origins and background" of the war in Iraq were as complex as those of WW2. I was NOT comparing the two conflicts. And as for Mr. Clinton, I stated in an earlier post that the road into Iraq led through the 9/11 attack, which had its root cause in Clinton's lack of response to several terrorist attacks on America and its military personnel and installations, which emboldened Osama bin-Laden and his cohorts into attacking the World Trade Center. And I do agree that the CIA director did fall down on the job, if he told Mr. Bush that the evidence supporting the WMD in Iraq theory was a "slam dunk". If *any* world leader gets bad information, he/she can make the blunder of a lifetime, no matter what their intent was.

 

If that was the case then surley he would not have backed him when the mis-information came out.

 

We don't know what went on behind closed doors, whether Tenet referenced his subordinates as the ones who gave him the bad intel or what. I agree though, if I'm Bush and Tenet tells me "it's a slam dunk" for WMDs, he can start looking for another job immediately.

 

Found a hilarous animation about Bush and Kerry.
http://www.clarkson.edu/~hollenca/this_land_mov.swf

Edit: Woohoo, 100's post

 

I'll just be glad when the election is finally over. Three months of listening to campaign ads... :roll:

 

This is really taken too far in the US... :lol: