President Bush

[kjb434]

1800 americans. Why is there outrage over this number?

It's definitely a good number compared the success of events going on in Iraq.

Considering we lost well over 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam, more in WWII, and the most in our own Civil War, I don't think we can complain about the Iraq War death toll.

Also, how come nobody complains about the death toll from the Bosnian Conflict? How come nobody compains about the innocent civilians we killed in Yugoslavia? How we can be there for several years and nobody is saying we need to pull out? Why did we attack a country that was essentially embroiled in a civil war? We spend billions there yet know news reporter or current anti-war group in the US that is against the Iraq war were against this conflict. I think this shows how most the anitwar groups are really just anti-Bush groups, because they should have been just as against the previous administration in being in Bosnia.

We have more of reason being in Iraq than in that conflict.

[pineda]

Also, how come nobody complains about the death toll from the Bosnian Conflict? How come nobody compains about the innocent civilians we killed in Yugoslavia? How we can be there for several years and nobody is saying we need to pull out? Why did we attack a country that was essentially embroiled in a civil war? We spend billions there yet know news reporter or current anti-war group in the US that is against the Iraq war were against this conflict. I think this shows how most the anitwar groups are really just anti-Bush groups, because they should have been just as against the previous administration in being in Bosnia.

Interesting questions! Perhaps because those that control the news outlets control what news we all get to read about and see on television. But, I think that is has actually been changing pretty dramatically since the advent of the Internet, don't you? Side question, where do YOU get the majority of your news from?

[kjb434]

Not from a Newpaper or Television news. Most of that is worthless crap.

I got to a variety of blogs from different points of view. I read specific area journals (science and engineering stuff). I listen to talk radio. I also like the Drudge Report.

As for the Houston Craponicle and TV news, I avoid them like the plague. The only thing they are good for is the weather and I can get that from a website.

[dbigtex56]

Yes, the Bosnian conflict is interesting. So is Vietnam, the American Civil War, the Crusaides and the Trojan War.

However, this war is now. As you're reading this, it's entirely possible that another American is losing his or her life in Iraq NOW (and notice that I didn't specify that this American would necessarily be a soldier). Let's stick to the present and the future. We can discuss the past, but we cannot change it.

Until very recently, I thought that we should stay in Iraq until order was restored and the Iraqi people could self-govern. If I thought there was even a remote chance this could be accomplished, I'd still support keeping our troups in Iraq.

But it has become obvious that this administration has no idea what they're doing. This 'military action' was supposed to be swift and surgical (remember "shock and awe"?) Once Saddam was removed, we were to be greeted as liberators, not occupiers. When we went into Iraq, the administration told us that we'd be out of there in six months, tops. Or have you forgotten?

When Saddam was captured, W. appeared in front of a huge banner saying MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. So why are we still there? Oh, wait...now it's not about Saddam, it's about bringing democracy to the Middle East.

So we send in ground troups. Not nearly enough, and poorly equipped. If we had set out to show the world our embarrassing lack of military preparedness, we could scarcely have done a better job. The mightiest nation on Earth cannot control an area the size of California. Kind of makes you wonder - is this because our leaders are incompetent? or that our enormous Department of Defense budget has been mismanaged?

We've already lost face in every imaginable way. Our only hope for redemption is to hold accountable the administration which got us into this mess.

[MidtownCoog]

And the Israelis can't control land the size of Manhattan.

And your point is?

[dbigtex56]

And the Israelis can't control land the size of Manhattan.

And your point is?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hmm...perhaps that a great deal of Israel's military budget comes from us, the last Superpower?

And that Israel is a much smaller country?

Edit: Population-wise. At least Israel seems sincere about their goals. They're using every resource, including mandatory military service. I don't see Cheney's or Bush's kids in Iraq.

[MidtownCoog]

I don't see Cheney's or Bush's kids in Iraq.

That argument is beyond weak.

That's like telling your football coach he should be out there with you doing wind-sprints.

[dbigtex56]

That argument is beyond weak.

That's like telling your football coach he should be out there with you doing wind-sprints.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well no.

That's like telling your football coach he shouldn't send you out there doing windsprints unless he'd do the same to his own kid.

P.S. What's a windsprint?

[kjb434]

The last thing I want is military where people are forced to serve.

The reason our military is so great is because it is voluntary. These soldiers know that when you joing the military your life can be lost. It's part the job requirement.

dbigtex56,

I'm trying to understand how you are getting the impression that things aren't going well in Iraq. I guess you watch TV news and read Newspapers. I regularly interact with several soldiers I know in Iraq and with parents of soldiers in Iraq. Everything they say and show me are at complete odds of the picture painted in the news.

Iraq is coming along quite well. The Iraqis ARE quite happy that we are there. The resistance is from Syrians, Iranians and some Saudis that are coming to Iraq to spread violence. I guess they can't take the concept that the Iraqi people will be free and better with a democracy where Islamic law is not the central element.

Also, several of the nations new paper editors have been complaining to the AP (associated press) about their stories not painting correct picture of Iraq because they are being written to by parents and soldiers telling them otherwise. All the AP chief editor could say is that our reporters don't leave the hotels to see what is really going on. The good news gets buried.

[uncertaintraveler]

1800 americans.  Why is there outrage over this number?

It's definitely a good number compared the success of events going on in Iraq. 

Considering we lost well over 50,000 soldiers in Vietnam, more in WWII, and the most in our own Civil War, I don't think we can complain about the Iraq War death toll.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, there was an article written several months ago in Slate (I believe...but it could have been the New York Times..if I had the time I'd find it and post the link) that analyzed the death rates in U.S. wars and noted that given the advancements of medicine and technology over the years, the death rate in Iraq is on-par with the death rate in Vietnam.

So, yeah, I think we can complain about the Iraq War death toll.

And we could do so regardless of how it compared to other wars. To me, any death in a voluntary war is one death too many.

[MidtownCoog]

Windsprint: One of a series of sprints run to develop breath and endurance. The goal is to get "winded".

[kjb434]

uncertaintraveler,

I see, your referencing Slate and New York Times. A little biased to be considered news sources.

I read from Slate often to get the left position then read the Wall Street Opinion Journal to get the right. And compare. Also read blogs from both sides that impressively gather news better than any paper in the US.

I still feel our death tolls are nothing to complain about.

Someone yesterday was blabbing on TV about 50 soldiers in a month. That's less than died from murder in Detroit or New York from murder. I'd rather be in Iraq with those numbers.

[HeightsGuy]

Funny that someone brought up the Bosnian conflict, someone recently sent me a list of quotes from then. They are rather interesting. (Full Disclosure - I have no idea whether these are accurate, attributable quotes):

"You can support the troops but not the president."

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."

--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"

--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."

--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."

--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."

--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"

--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)

[kjb434]

Those statements were warranted because this was a conflict that we had no real part in.

It was civil war that has roots that extend back over 1000 years. After WWI the country was formed combining these ethinic groups which causing the ensueing chaos.

Iraq was also formed somewhat in this way, but out reason for Iraq was many. Regardless of the WMD stuff everybody goes back too, we had many UN resolutions that promised action because of previouse resolution Sadam broke. The UN being the bunch of washed up terror loving puppies never want to enforce anything. US being fed up with the lack of enforcement by the UN and fellow European nations decided to form our own coalition and enforce the UN resolutions.

Let's be clear, Bush didn't lie. No one can ever state the lie he told. Under the intelligence presented to us by our own groups and groups from Britain, FRANCE, GERMANY, and RUSSIA; we had reason to believe WMD's were there. The Kurds felt the use of the WMD by Sadam. If Sadam didn't have anything, why would he let the UN inspectors do there job. The reason he didn't let them is that he wouldn't be able to have a bluff to use.

This Iraq war is everybit worth our effort. Through our effor in Afghanistand and Iraq, Libya gave up its WMDs and any Nuclear data they had to inspectors and is having it removed. Lebanon kick out a terrorist supporting country of Syria and is now restoring there democracy.

It's one thing if you oppose this war because you are a pacifist. That is your position and I can't change your mind and I respect your opinion. But to oppose this war just because you don't like the president or the party in power is a load of crap.

I understand the reason you've posted those quotes above. You were trying to say the repubs and convatives are saying the same thing as liberals and dems are saying now. There's a difference. Yogoslavia didn't have UN resolutions that stating consequences would occur from their activity. If it was up to the UN, they would have left the civil war alone. NATO took action and asked for our help. We provided lots of troops, money, and NO-BID contracts to Haliburton under Clinton to operate in Yugoslavia. I agree with the removing Milosevic, and I actually supported the Bosnian effort, but it should have been more UN supported than using most of our troops and power to get the job done.

Actually, the Iraq war should have been a UN effort during the Clinton adminstration before Yugoslavia since Sadam was breaking the UN resolutions after the first Gulf war. Everybody just let him do what he wants. Our war now is just finally enforcing everything that was promised. WMDs were a part, but no where the primary goal. WMDs are an emotional pull to show eminent threat and everyone aggreed including: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Joseph Biden, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Hilary Clinton. The supported removing Sadam under Clinton, just not when Bush wanted to do it. Because all of these people completely changed there position after Bush pledge to remove Sadam.

[RedScare]

"1800 americans. Why is there outrage over this number?"

"I still feel our death tolls are nothing to complain about."

I had to go back and get those 2 quotes because I still can't believe you said it...and then repeated it.

I can't speak for others, but I can safely say this. My outrage at this number is that it is 1800 (actually 1850) more Americans than the Iraqis killed before March 20, 2003.

[HeightsGuy]

Once again, funny you bring up the UN. I don't oppose this war, all I am pointing out is that politicians are politicians no matter the party. What I do fear about this administration is that they will never, ever admit defeat. I'm not saying we are there yet, but even if this thing drags out a few more years I feel we will continue to get the same "all is good and according to plan" line.

I don't think the WMD issues have anything to do with the problems being faced. I think the critical mistake was made when we were told the Iraqi poulation would greet us with open arms and flowers. That hasn't happened, and that's where we need to focus our energy in fixing. Sadly, I don't think there is an answer to that as long as we are there. You can't force a democracy on someone that doesn't seem to want it. The US wanted it, and it still took us 100 years, a civil war and the good fortune of an industrial revolution to get our act together. I believe the way out of this is to convince the UN to take a peacekeeper role and for us to get the hell out of there. The UN can cry all they want to about us going in there, but if we went in to rid Iraq of Sadam, then Mission Accomplished! Let's get out of there and let the UN finish cleaning up.

[west20th]

That argument is beyond weak.

That's like telling your football coach he should be out there with you doing wind-sprints.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. That argument is not beyond weak. Are Bush's and Cheney's children any more precious than anyone elses? If the Iraq war is so important why isn't it important enough for our "leaders" children to serve? Bush's father served. Of course Bush or Cheney could not be bothered to serve in the war of their time. Bush got a cush National Guard position (National Guard rarely got called for duty back then) and Cheney had "other priorities" at the time. Most likely "your football coach" actually played some football in his day. Maybe Bush would not start discretionary wars if he knew his own children would be at risk.

[west20th]

The last thing I want is military where people are forced to serve.

The reason our military is so great is because it is voluntary.  These soldiers know that when you joing the military your life can be lost.  It's part the job requirement. 

dbigtex56,

I'm trying to understand how you are getting the impression that things aren't going well in Iraq.  I guess you watch TV news and read Newspapers.  I regularly interact with several soldiers I know in Iraq and with parents of soldiers in Iraq.  Everything they say and show me are at complete odds of the picture painted in the news.

Iraq is coming along quite well.  The Iraqis ARE quite happy that we are there.  The resistance is from Syrians, Iranians and some Saudis that are coming to Iraq to spread violence.  I guess they can't take the concept that the Iraqi people will be free and better with a democracy where Islamic law is not the central element.

Also, several of the nations new paper editors have been complaining to the AP (associated press) about their stories not painting correct picture of Iraq because they are being written to by parents and soldiers telling them otherwise.  All the AP chief editor could say is that our reporters don't leave the hotels to see what is really going on.  The good news gets buried.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"I guess they can't take the concept that the Iraqi people will be free and better with a democracy where Islamic law is not the central element."? Don't be too sure Islamic law will not be the central element. Their constitution has not been completed or ratified yet. It may very well have Islamic law at it's core.

Also, maybe the reporters don't get out of their hotels because it is too dangerous for them to do so. And what happened to the "imbedded" reporters that were with the troops?

[MidtownCoog]

If the Iraq war is so important why isn't it important enough for our "leaders" children to serve?

And this is even beyond-beyond weak. I am not in the Army. My Dad served in Vietnam. Am I precious?

And Bush and Cheny's kids? A dyke and two air-heads!

Yeah, that's who we really need to be fighting a war.

[west20th]

Those statements were warranted because this was a conflict that we had no real part in.

It was civil war that has roots that extend back over 1000 years.  After WWI the country was formed combining these ethinic groups which causing the ensueing chaos.

Iraq was also formed somewhat in this way, but out reason for Iraq was many.  Regardless of the WMD stuff everybody goes back too, we had many UN resolutions that promised action because of previouse resolution Sadam broke.  The UN being the bunch of washed up terror loving puppies never want to enforce anything.  US being fed up with the lack of enforcement by the UN and fellow European nations decided to form our own coalition and enforce the UN resolutions.

Let's be clear, Bush didn't lie.  No one can ever state the lie he told.  Under the intelligence presented to us by our own groups and groups from Britain, FRANCE, GERMANY, and RUSSIA; we had reason to believe WMD's were there.  The Kurds felt the use of the WMD by Sadam.  If Sadam didn't have anything, why would he let the UN inspectors do there job.  The reason he didn't let them is that he wouldn't be able to have a bluff to use.

This Iraq war is everybit worth our effort.  Through our effor in Afghanistand and Iraq, Libya gave up its WMDs and any Nuclear data they had to inspectors and is having it removed.  Lebanon kick out a terrorist supporting country of Syria and is now restoring there democracy.

It's one thing if you oppose this war because you are a pacifist.  That is your position and I can't change your mind and I respect your opinion.  But to oppose this war just because you don't like the president or the party in power is a load of crap. 

I understand the reason you've posted those quotes above.  You were trying to say the repubs and convatives are saying the same thing as liberals and dems are saying now.  There's a difference.  Yogoslavia didn't have UN resolutions that stating consequences would occur from their activity.  If it was up to the UN, they would have left the civil war alone.  NATO took action and asked for our help.  We provided lots of troops, money, and NO-BID contracts to Haliburton under Clinton to operate in Yugoslavia.  I agree with the removing Milosevic, and I actually supported the Bosnian effort, but it should have been more UN supported than using most of our troops and power to get the job done.

Actually, the Iraq war should have been a UN effort during the Clinton adminstration before Yugoslavia since Sadam was breaking the UN resolutions after the first Gulf war.  Everybody just let him do what he wants.  Our war now is just finally enforcing everything that was promised.  WMDs were a part, but no where the primary goal.  WMDs are an emotional pull to show eminent threat and everyone aggreed including: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Joseph Biden, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Hilary Clinton.  The supported removing Sadam under Clinton, just not when Bush wanted to do it.  Because all of these people completely changed there position after Bush pledge to remove Sadam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your opinion? You just quoted Sean "Bush can do no wrong" Hannity and Rush "it's all Clinton's fault" Limbaugh verbatum.

[west20th]

And this is even beyond-beyond weak.  I am not in the Army.  My Dad served in Vietnam. Am I precious?

And Bush and Cheny's kids?  A dyke and two air-heads! 

Yeah, that's who we really need to be fighting a war.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"A dyke and two air-heads! "? I think that statement says all we need to know about you. And yes, even though you are a closed minded bigot (reference the above statement) Your life is precious. All human life is.

[MidtownCoog]

OK, Bush Hater. You are totally transparent.

Whatever you say.

At least you don't have to read between the lines in my posts.

Just come out and say it! You hate Bush.

[west20th]

OK, Bush Hater.  You are totally transparent.

Whatever you say. 

At least you don't have to read between the lines in my posts.

Just come out and say it!  You hate Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I don't hate Bush. If he still drank I'd probably enjoy having a few beers with him. Also, I thought he was an OK Governor. He seems to be an honest, well intentioned person. But so was Jimmy Carter and they are/were both inept presidents. One can disagree with someones policies without hating them.

[MidtownCoog]

Just wait until we elect a President with no children and no military record.

Should that President be forbidden to go to war becase of that?

[RedScare]

west20th, please don't get personal. As volatile as this thread could be, it has remained civil. Don't ruin it.

I'll admit it. I can't think of one thing Bush has done in his 4 and a half years that I think was the smartest thing to do. In fact, much of it was the worst. But, on Iraq, I am a pragmatist. Foreign policy demands it.

Iraq was contained by the sanctions imposed after Gulf War I. Sure, there were violations, but by and large, Saddam was impotent. And the US knew it. If the goal was US security, only an idiot would think that taking out a ruler who controlled 3 historically warring factions (Kurds, Shia and Sunni) would not open a pandora's box. Leaving him in place would have kept the lid on the box.

Now, we have given radical Islamists all the reason they need to attack. It has made the world more at risk for terrorism. The administration knew this was a likely result and ignored it. It is an utter failure of a policy.

The freedom and liberation of Iraqis is a load of crap and everyone knows it. Far more people die in North Korea, Darfur, and other places and we do nothing. Intelligent people should leave this out of their argument because it exposes their lack of reason in support of the war.

One of the biggest reasons we should not have engaged in this conflict is that it has now exposed the weaknesses of our military. The Rumsfeld Plan, which has been touted by Bush as the future of the US military, is long on technology and short on foot soldiers. We can drop bombs all day long, but most people will survive. They know not to hang around strategic targets, but instead, stay in the residential areas. Eventually, we have to go in and finish the job. Unlike other poor countries, where military service is a prize, with good food and good pay, American military service is low pay and not valued if a better job is available. Americans, used to an easy existence, don't generally want to sign up if they might die. The esprit de corps of our military is doing wonders keeping our current soldiers enlisting, but armed conflict is killing our recruitment.

This past weekend, Bush started talking tough, hinting that we might attack Iran if they don't stop their nuke program. The problem is the entire world knows that we don't have the troops to go to war against Iran. They haven't been under sanctions. And the entire Middle East will back them, as they aren't upset with Iran as they were with Saddam.

So, it is an empty threat. The world's greatest military has shown it's acheille's heel. If we had not engaged in a conflict that we did not need, or if we had planned on how to win it, we might not be so impotent. But we did, so we are.

And, I would think that those most upset would be the hawks. But, they are so bound at the hip with Bush, they cannot admit the truth.

That is why I opposed this war since the start. Not because I am a pacifist, but because I am a pragmatist.

[west20th]

Just wait until we elect a President with no children and no military record.

Should that President be forbidden to go to war becase of that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. More than likely most future presidents will not have a military record. My point is that we should go to war when our security is at risk. Iraq was contained and could have been dealt with later. If the cause is so important he should make the sacrifices he asks of others. Just as his father did in WWII. It just seems Bush cannot generate the support and sacrifice needed to win any war when he, and almost all of the members of his Administration, are unwilling to make the sacrifices they are asking of others. It just makes one wonder why we are there in the first place if we are not willing to put forth a full effort to win. One does not start a war and put out a half-a$%^d effort to fight it. And when I say half-as^%^$d effort don't take that as a slam on the troops. I mean if you start a war you send all the troops you need, equip them with all they need and let the Generals do their job. Basically, if you aren't going to do it right, stay home.

[MidtownCoog]

Islam is the root cause of the backwardness of the Muslims.

If that were not the case, we would not be having this conversation. Take the USA out of the equation, and the Muslim rage is still there.

And if the Islamisists win, they still have no solutions.

No money, no jobs, no hope, no peace.

Violence is their only hope. Just ask Hammas.

[kjb434]

Below is an editorial article by a writer who lost his child and had also posted many more letters from other parents of fallen soldiers. Mrs. Sheehan is in no way a majority spokesperson for Americans and especially parents of slain soldiers.

Their Children Died Too

[Ashikaga]

Should the president go out to meet with her?  What's your opinion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush is afraid that she is a terrorist; she might have a bomb strapped to her.

[dbigtex56]

Islam is the root cause of the backwardness of the Muslims.

If that were not the case, we would not be having this conversation.  Take the USA out of the equation, and the Muslim rage is still there. 

And if the Islamisists win, they still have no solutions.

No money, no jobs, no hope, no peace. 

Violence is their only hope.  Just ask Hammas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well gee. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'll have to explain that to the Muslims who operate my local convenience store. You know, the ones whose success has allowed them to open two additional stores. The ones who spend their spare time getting degrees in computer science and business administration.

Poor backward bastards! Yet, there they stand, reading the financial pages of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Don't they know that violence is their only hope? And they tell me about their pathetic relatives, like the sister back in India who's a medical doctor and cancer researcher.

If only they belonged to a civilized religion! Perhaps the recent events in the Gaza Strip can serve as a sort of inspiration.