Bush's Errors

[no1tovote4]

I think you underestimate Kerrys' ability to flip flop. Even without WMDs and "imminant threats" etc., I believe there is enough REASON to go to war.
The dems are always gonna say they were lied too even if they did approve a declaration of war.

I believe there was enough if we simply pointed to the video of Saddam paying off families of suicide murderers with big Lotto-Like checks on TV in Palestine. Terrorist connection? Duh!

However Constitutionally we cannot wage war without a Declaration, I would prefer we require our Government to follow the rules set out for them in that document.

 

[dilloduck]

I believe there was enough if we simply pointed to the video of Saddam paying off families of suicide murderers with big Lotto-Like checks on TV in Palestine. Terrorist connection? Duh!

However Constitutionally we cannot wage war without a Declaration, I would prefer we require our Government to follow the rules set out for them in that document.

The wording in a declaration of war might be interesting. How would we define who we are at war with?

 

[no1tovote4]

The wording in a declaration of war might be interesting. How would we define who we are at war with?

At both times it was clear, Afghanistan then Iraq. The reasoning behind why we attacked those countries may be defined differently but where we are fighting is very clear. With clearly defined reasons a declaration of war can be a powerful tool for diplomacy as well. It clearly sets out what will set us off and defines for other nations the limits we will set before we again attack another country.

We may be fighting terrorism, but we are fighting in defined areas.

 

[dilloduck]

At both times it was clear, Afghanistan then Iraq. The reasoning behind why we attacked those countries may be defined differently but where we are fighting is very clear. With clearly defined reasons a declaration of war can be a powerful tool for diplomacy as well. It clearly sets out what will set us off and defines for other nations the limits we will set before we again attack another country.

We may be fighting terrorism, but we are fighting in defined areas.

I thought we were only at war with certain people in those countries, not the whole country. I have no idea who we can even deal with diplomatically to stop terrorism but Libya certainly understood where we drew the line!

 

[no1tovote4]

I thought we were only at war with certain people in those countries, not the whole country. I have no idea who we can even deal with diplomatically to stop terrorism but Libya certainly understood where we drew the line!

In order to stop terrorism, it must no longer be acceptable to have countries give money, support, real estate for bases, legitimacy, etc. to their claims and actions. There is where the military battle must be fought, with countries that will support the actions of terrorists. We must work diplomatically as well to get those governments to freeze the funding, and to educate their citizenry about the horrors these people relish visiting upon the innocent.

The first step would be to clearly define the intent of the US against just such actions. Attacking Iraq was just such a step, but as I said before without the declaration of war it has become a "quagmire" to those who voted to send us there. Some give them a pass, without regard to their position when this conflict began. Simply, voting to declare war is a simple choice, either you vote for the war or against it you cannot hedge yourself into a safe spot in the future by defining your vote differently at different times.

Another battle to be fought is in Public Relations, in this we have made some errors. Instead of having Arabs dance in the streets when buildings fall after terror attacks in the US, our goal should be to have them embarrassed that actions were taken in their name that caused the deaths of innocents. This is the actual battle that we have not yet begun to really fight. The first step again would be successfully installing a powerful government in Iraq.

 

[CSM]

In order to stop terrorism, it must no longer be acceptable to have countries give money, support, real estate for bases, legitimacy, etc. to their claims and actions. There is where the military battle must be fought, with countries that will support the actions of terrorists. We must work diplomatically as well to get those governments to freeze the funding, and to educate their citizenry about the horrors these people relish visiting upon the innocent.

The first step would be to clearly define the intent of the US against just such actions. Attacking Iraq was just such a step, but as I said before without the declaration of war it has become a "quagmire" to those who voted to send us there. Some give them a pass, without regard to their position when this conflict began. Simply, voting to declare war is a simple choice, either you vote for the war or against it you cannot hedge yourself into a safe spot in the future by defining your vote differently at different times.

Another battle to be fought is in Public Relations, in this we have made some errors. Instead of having Arabs dance in the streets when buildings fall after terror attacks in the US, our goal should be to have them embarrassed that actions were taken in their name that caused the deaths of innocents. This is the actual battle that we have not yet begun to really fight. The first step again would be successfully installing a powerful government in Iraq.

I pretty much agree with what you are saying. While Bush made it very clear where we were coming from by stating that you were either for us or against us in the war on terror, The US congress was somewhat less forthright.

As for the Arab world being embarassed about the deaths of the innocent, I am skeptical that will EVER happen. It is far easier to blame the great satan
or Israel, especially when such propaganda is spewed from the mullahs and other religious leaders of that religion. Working towards the idea that they should be embarassed would entail a MAJOR overhaul in their perspective of morality.

 

[no1tovote4]

I pretty much agree with what you are saying. While Bush made it very clear where we were coming from by stating that you were either for us or against us in the war on terror, The US congress was somewhat less forthright.

As for the Arab world being embarassed about the deaths of the innocent, I am skeptical that will EVER happen. It is far easier to blame the great satan
or Israel, especially when such propaganda is spewed from the mullahs and other religious leaders of that religion. Working towards the idea that they should be embarassed would entail a MAJOR overhaul in their perspective of morality.

And that is the reason a war on terror will take so long and be so difficult. Either we would need to be brutal, ruthless and unforgiving in all our actions taking nothing into account but our personal safety and thus losing a large part of what makes us a great nation, or we need to take a much longer view and work to bring back the days from long ago when Muslims, Jews, and Christians debated God and their views in the squares of towns in the middle east.

Work to get Muslims back to the time that they saved science and mathematics from the Dark Ages of Western Civilization. Back to a time when their pride was found in their civility rather than their brutality and ruthlessness and willingness to suicide.

 

[CSM]

And that is the reason a war on terror will take so long and be so difficult. Either we would need to be brutal, ruthless and unforgiving in all our actions taking nothing into account but our personal safety and thus losing a large part of what makes us a great nation, or we need to take a much longer view and work to bring back the days from long ago when Muslims, Jews, and Christians debated God and their views in the squares of towns in the middle east.

Work to get Muslims back to the time that they saved science and mathematics from the Dark Ages of Western Civilization. Back to a time when their pride was found in their civility rather than their brutality and ruthlessness and willingness to suicide.

Nice, utopian ideals. Dont forget that there has to be a willingness by all parties concerned to foster such an idyllic scene. I have yet to hear one fanatical Muslim offer to debate God or their views with any party. What I see is a bunch of terrorists DEMANDING that we capitulate or they will continue to act in the most brutal, horrific manner.

 

[no1tovote4]

Nice, utopian ideals. Dont forget that there has to be a willingness by all parties concerned to foster such an idyllic scene. I have yet to hear one fanatical Muslim offer to debate God or their views with any party. What I see is a bunch of terrorists DEMANDING that we capitulate or they will continue to act in the most brutal, horrific manner.

I wasn't talking about fanatical Muslims, I was talking about their population in general. Selling an idea of greatness without selling their children to Suicide Solutions, Inc. while difficult will not be impossible.

I personally know two that work where I work that will do just that.

If we get the general populace working towards greatness in a different way it will become unacceptable to have the terrorists claiming to be part of their religion.

 

[Merlin1047]

Hey MJ!

Okay, you got several of us to post things we don't like about Pres. Bush.

Now, would you mind explaining Was there some point to all that???? Or were you just testing to see if we would actually do it?

 

[musicman]

thereisnothingwrongwithpresidentbushheisperfectiwillfollowblindlywhereheleadsforiamamindlessconservativedupe


Better, MJ?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

This is a general request to anybody who vehemently defends Bush to reveal things they dislike about Bush.

He was a loudmouthed-Chickenhawk, who figured his last-shot at "glory" was to be a WAR-time President!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGaKXk1yheE]Real Time with Bill Maher (Dan Rather).avi - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Gremlin-USA]

This is from 2004, get out of the basement much?, or have the past stuck up so far you cannot see reality?

.

 

[midcan5]

By 2004 Bush had become a kinda of joke to many people, but 911 created an atmosphere of fear and insecurity that breeds the worst in people and in nations. Terrorism was a big hit. It is a bit hard to get into that wayback machine and read the mood of the nation then. Americans change with the TV schedule. Most are not very deep as living and working and the mundane occupy most of our time. Iraq turned the world against us and forever changed the idea of a just war.

Many similarities though are still present today and you see it in the swift boating in the republican presidential race, and it will repeat itself now that big money numskulls manage the minds of the partisans or other assorted forgetful citizens. And so it goes and so goes the same idiocy theater that has so little to do with the real world.

"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent. All in the name of freedom. What to do?" William E. Connolly See The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine

 

[whitehall]

The pop-culture educated left often refers to the conflict in Iraq as if it was some sort of an "executive order" when they should know different. Harry Truman sent Troops to Korea without any authorization from congress and we lost about 40,000 in three years. George Bush had congressional authorization for boots on the ground in Iraq and later democrats pretended to be bystanders and undermined the mission.