Question for Iraq war supporters

[maineman]

I did not questioning his IQ and had him for visiting prof' at Emory. But even Carter admitted that he was taking the country in the wrong direction in a class discussion. Having lived through his administration, I remember his Presidency very well and there is good reason why he was a one term president. Well meaning but completely ineffective. His "well meaning" policies brought us the Ayatollah Khomeini--but I doubt you were even born then, otherwise you wouldn't say what you said. So live with the myth, while folks like RetireGyStg and me clean up your mess.

Carter's policies did not bring us the Ayatollah... the policies of American presidents ever since Dulles and the CIA brought down Mossadegh in '53 did.

And I was alive then. What was your rating Masterchief?

 

[maineman]

Careful or Nancy will start claiming your a teenage pimple faced kid and no vet.

how is the acne coming along? wash your face more often and quit giving oral sex to sheep and it might improve, dipstick.

 

[maineman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Carter doesn't come out particularly well in the average scholar rankings of US Presidents. At =28th, he's currently six places lower than GWB.

And on the individual poll rankings, JC only cracks the top 20 once. Carter also fails to make the top 10 among historians who describe themselves as liberals. Among conservatives, he's at the lower end of the scale (one place above Nixon).

It remains to be seen whether GWB's current 22nd place will stand the test of time. It's only based on the aggregation of 2 polls currently, so I'd guess not.



Actually, I've just noticed that the further you scroll down that page, the worse the Bush adminisration looks.

George Bush can't even pronounce NUKE-YOU-LER let alone run a nuclear power plant.

 

[tigerbob]

George Bush can't even pronounce NUKE-YOU-LER let alone run a nuclear power plant.

Yes, I've heard that criticism several times. It's funny but, to be honest, I really don't care how he pronounces nuclear. In one way, it's rather like saying that FDR shouldn't have been President because he was in a wheelchair. It has nothing to do with anything in my book.

I prefer to judge him on his record. 20 years from now, what will his pronunciation matter?

 

[trobinett]

Yes, I've heard that criticism several times. It's funny but, to be honest, I really don't care how he pronounces nuclear. In one way, it's rather like saying that FDR shouldn't have been President because he was in a wheelchair. It has nothing to do with anything in my book.

I prefer to judge him on his record. 20 years from now, what will his pronunciation matter?

Careful there tigerbob, reasoned response, and the talking heads for the left don't mix well.

 

[maineman]

Yes, I've heard that criticism several times. It's funny but, to be honest, I really don't care how he pronounces nuclear. In one way, it's rather like saying that FDR shouldn't have been President because he was in a wheelchair. It has nothing to do with anything in my book.

I prefer to judge him on his record. 20 years from now, what will his pronunciation matter?

And of course his pronunciation of words is not my beef with Bush... I was clearly being sarcastic and comparing Carter's nuclear power background with Bush's rather mediocre history.

I think that history will judge his invasion if Iraq as the single worst foreign policy decision ever made by a head of state in the modern era....but clearly, we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Gunny]

George Bush can't even pronounce NUKE-YOU-LER let alone run a nuclear power plant.

Sure he can. It's you Yankee folk that talk funny. Must be all that snow.

 

[CSM]

Sure he can. It's you Yankee folk that talk funny. Must be all that snow.

It isn't we Yankees that talk funny!

 

[tigerbob]

And of course his pronunciation of words is not my beef with Bush... I was clearly being sarcastic and comparing Carter's nuclear power background with Bush's rather mediocre history.

I think that history will judge his invasion if Iraq as the single worst foreign policy decision ever made by a head of state in the modern era....but clearly, we'll have to wait and see.

My bad - I'm not familiar with Carter's nuclear power background so I didn't get your point. I was fairly young during the Carter administration.

I know you probably won't agree, but I think the removal of Saddam was the right thing. But I also think the aftermath was very badly handled, and that will probably be what Bush is remembered for in terms of his foreign policy, rightly or wrongly.

I would have preferred it to have been left to the UN. Being British, I don't have to look very hard to see the damage that has been done in many cases by the 'British Empire' meddling in the internal affairs of other countries that it did not or could not really understand (or perhaps that it chose to ignore for selfish reasons). In cases like this, a lot can be learned from history.

That said, how long do people have to suffer before the activities of the UN actually achieve anything positive?

 

[Warner]

You must be too young to remember the Carter Administration.

Carter got a raw deal. He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation. Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war. His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues. What could he have done differently?

=========================

Broadly agree, but to say GWB is responsible for destroying America is a bit glib isn't it? He has harmed America's credibility globally, but that hardly amounts to destruction.

That rhetoric is a little bit extreme, isn’t it? I doubt that Bush fully understood what he was doing. He is a clumsy war hawk who didn’t sufficiently consider the consequences...

Yet, GWB did not destroy America. America is not destroyed. America is still one of the greatest nations – but with a clumsy and careless leader.

Both the ideal and the reality of America have been put in jepardy by GWB's actions:

1) The war debt, which will probably reach TWO TRILLION DOLLARS puts every American, especially the young, in serious economic danger. In a new world economy where we will actually have to compete we will be also servicing this huge debt. This alone may destroy America as a dominant world power within the next 50 years.

2) The USA is conceptually about freedom and civil liberties. Both have been seriously eroded under this Administration! Habius Corpus and the fundamental right to privacy have both been virtually eliminated under the Bush Presidency.

3) Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.

4) Power has been transfered from the public to corporations without regard for the interests of the people. You may not realize it but the right of the private individual to declare bankruptcy has been pretty much eliminated, yet corporations are still allowed to declare bankruptcy and their principals are for the most part not held accountable no matter how corrupt their behavior. When they are held accountable, the penalties are minimal and the wrong doing has still paid off for them.

5) The power of the Presidency has been abused to the point of eliminating checks and balances. If you read our constitution and the federalist papers upon which it is founded it is absolutely clear that congress has a responsibilty to impeach President Bush for the Libby commutation. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR - it is not supposed to be used to ruin a Presidency over a blow-job, it is supposed to be used when a President uses executive powers to block investigation of his office when criminal behavior is suspected. The mis-use of "pardons and commutations" is specifically cited as when a President should be impeached!

Bin-Ladin's goal was to destroy the American way of life. GWB's actions threaten to accomplish this goal.

This is why I believe President Bush will in fact be remembered as the worst President in US history and may even have effectively destroyed this country. It will continue to exist, but may never recover economically or politically from the damage this man has done.

 

[Annie]

Carter got a raw deal. He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation. Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war. His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues. What could he have done differently?

Actually the hostages were taken November 4, 1979, well into his 3rd year in office. The gas hikes were not Iran, but rather OPEC. The Carter response to the energy crisis and general inflation was to increase Federal spending and slapping price caps on, needless to say that made things much worse. Then keeping with his theme of poor leadership, he came up with 'The Malaise Speech.' quite possibly the very worst speech by a "leader" of our country.

=========================



Both the ideal and the reality of America have been put in jepardy by GWB's actions:

1) The war debt, which will probably reach TWO TRILLION DOLLARS puts every American, especially the young, in serious economic danger. In a new world economy where we will actually have to compete we will be also servicing this huge debt. This alone may destroy America as a dominant world power within the next 50 years.

2) The USA is conceptually about freedom and civil liberties. Both have been seriously eroded under this Administration! Habius Corpus and the fundamental right to privacy have both been virtually eliminated under the Bush Presidency.

That would be Habeas Corpus and where has that been eliminated from US citizens? How has your right to privacy been eliminated? Oh I know, the Patriot Act. How have you been effected? There are potential problems with it, I agree. I've yet to see the 'elimination of rights though.

3) Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.

Guess you missed those remarks by Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown?

4) Power has been transfered from the public to corporations without regard for the interests of the people. You may not realize it but the right of the private individual to declare bankruptcy has been pretty much eliminated, yet corporations are still allowed to declare bankruptcy and their principals are for the most part not held accountable no matter how corrupt their behavior. When they are held accountable, the penalties are minimal and the wrong doing has still paid off for them.

That the rules of bankruptcy were tightened, was not a bad thing, which is why Congress, not the president decided it was time to change that legislation.

5) The power of the Presidency has been abused to the point of eliminating checks and balances. If you read our constitution and the federalist papers upon which it is founded it is absolutely clear that congress has a responsibilty to impeach President Bush for the Libby commutation. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR - it is not supposed to be used to ruin a Presidency over a blow-job, it is supposed to be used when a President uses executive powers to block investigation of his office when criminal behavior is suspected. The mis-use of "pardons and commutations" is specifically cited as when a President should be impeached!

Bin-Ladin's goal was to destroy the American way of life. GWB's actions threaten to accomplish this goal.

This is why I believe President Bush will in fact be remembered as the worst President in US history and may even have effectively destroyed this country. It will continue to exist, but may never recover economically or politically from the damage this man has done.

Oh wow, for a bit there you seemed to have some good points, then BLAM, total BDS. Gee that poor Congress, not able to override a veto. Then again, GW can't get his appointees through either. What was that? Oh yeah, checks and balances. Libby's commutation? LOL! That's a specified power of governmental executives, your governor may also wield that sort of power. Yeah, there were the outrage of such, just like the Clinton pardons. Power is power.

 

[steeliniraq]

Is anyone willing to say that Bush should have at least inspected the hospitals before he had us go to war? Can you say that there is anything that you think would be obvious that Bush should have done differently? (I’m not talking about hindsight being 20/20. I’m talking about foresight that would make you think that Bush jumped into war too quickly.) Would anyone say something along these lines, “Wow? You screwed up here. Didn’t it ever dawn on you that this action would be more appropriate?” - or do all pro-Bush and Pro-Iraq people think that all of Bush’s decisions throughout the war in Iraq to this point were reasonable and well-planned-out.

LOL did we take a look at our hospitals before we went to war with Germany, Japan, and Italy in WW2? Did Clinton look at our hospitals before we went into Somolia? What kind of dumb comment is that? If your point is Bush didn't do everything right then I agree with you. But the approach you took is not very well thoughtout. Are you implying that before every war we ever fight we need to make sure we have the best support system before defending ourselves or in this case invading? I can see it now Time out Japan and Germany we aren't quite ready for this war come back in 10-15 years when we are. Sometimes wars can't wait and must happen in the now without everything being perfect. Bush and his guys along with 82% of America thought that 2003 was the time. Did he and his guys do everything right? Hell no, but honestly just like you said we have 20/20 hindsight now.

I think instead of crying about the past or pointing fingers at everyone we figure out how to win this thing and get it done with.

 

[tigerbob]

3) Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.

.....................

This is why I believe President Bush will in fact be remembered as the worst President in US history and may even have effectively destroyed this country. It will continue to exist, but may never recover economically or politically from the damage this man has done.

Kathianne has already answered your questions as well as or better than I could (on those questions I would feel competent to address). I would just add observations in the above area though.

The USA's standing has not been destroyed, though it has been damaged. The world still looks to the US for a degree of leadership. To be sure, there is huge mistrust of GWB, rightly or wrongly, but the new administration will have the opportunity to win back a lot of that lost trust.

You made a point about freedom and civil liberties, and I agree with you to a point. But this is essentially the basis on which the US went to war in the first place and I believe this point is too often glossed over by those who are depressed or argry about the outcome, be it in terms of the human cost, financial outlay or political capital.

Freedom is somethig many of us take for granted. Freedom is not a right in everyone's eyes, and it frequently requires that a price be paid.

 

[Warner]

Carter got a raw deal. He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation. Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war. His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues. What could he have done differently?

Actually the hostages were taken November 4, 1979, well into his 3rd year in office. The gas hikes were not Iran, but rather OPEC. The Carter response to the energy crisis and general inflation was to increase Federal spending and slapping price caps on, needless to say that made things much worse. Then keeping with his theme of poor leadership, he came up with

I will agree with you - Carter was not a good president. I was simply trying to point out that he inherited so much baggage that he was unable to function in the way he had intended.

=========================

Both the ideal and the reality of America have been put in jepardy by GWB's actions:

1) The war debt, which will probably reach TWO TRILLION DOLLARS puts every American, especially the young, in serious economic danger. In a new world economy where we will actually have to compete we will be also servicing this huge debt. This alone may destroy America as a dominant world power within the next 50 years.

No comment on this one Kat? This alone is by far the biggest reason I believe Bush will be remembered as the worst President in US history and what may cause the decline of America's super-power position.

2) The USA is conceptually about freedom and civil liberties. Both have been seriously eroded under this Administration! Habius Corpus and the fundamental right to privacy have both been virtually eliminated under the Bush Presidency.

That would be Habeas Corpus and where has that been eliminated from US citizens?

US citizens have been detained without receiving their Constitutional rights under the PA. Some have been held for over a year without access to council or even being charged with specific crimes. Under the PA the Administration can declare anyone an enemy and deny them their rights. That it has only happened in a few instances is irrelevant when considering an absolute right of citizenship.

How has your right to privacy been eliminated? Oh I know, the Patriot Act. How have you been effected? There are potential problems with it, I agree. I've yet to see the 'elimination of rights though.

You apparently have no idea the depth of the data mining that is going on in our country right now. Virtually every phone call, every email, and every transaction is recorded for immediate or future analysis. Cameras are appearing throughout our cities and the video is being stored and mined. Within a few years (if not already) virtually all movements of everyone will be on record.

3) Our Standing in the world as a country that believes in and upholds the rule of law has been totally destroyed.

Guess you missed those remarks by Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown?

Sarkozy - The French economy is stalled and this is just his way of trying to jump start it. It has nothing to do with our standing with the French. We will see where this will lead but I have little faith in the French. None of our allies in Afghanistan have really put out. Spend a little time there and you will see that the USA does all the hard/dangerous work there.

Merkel - she is choosing what she considers the lesser of 2 evils. She realizes that China is the real threat to the West both economically and militarily. Again, this does not represent any kind of improvement in America's standing with Germany.

Brown - I assume you mean Gordon Brown? The Brits have been more or less with us from the start. His statements about Afghanistan are pure propoganda BS. Things are perhaps better in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but the situation is declining not improving.

4) Power has been transfered from the public to corporations without regard for the interests of the people. You may not realize it but the right of the private individual to declare bankruptcy has been pretty much eliminated, yet corporations are still allowed to declare bankruptcy and their principals are for the most part not held accountable no matter how corrupt their behavior. When they are held accountable, the penalties are minimal and the wrong doing has still paid off for them.

That the rules of bankruptcy were tightened, was not a bad thing, which is why Congress, not the president decided it was time to change that legislation.

President Bush was very much behind this legislation.

The bankruptcy rules were changed in 2005 by a congress in the pockets of big business - in particular big banks. The problem with the change in the bankruptcy rules is that it only effects individuals. Corporations can still duck their debt by filing for bankruptcy, but individuals cannot.

Furthermore, it puts all the responsibility for credit on the borrower. The banks should be responsible in how they lend and not extend unreasonable amounts of credit to those insufficient means. This change is just the end of a cycle of changes which have set up a future disaster for the American public. First the maximum interest that could be charged was increased from 18.5% to 22.5% to 29.5% and today I believe it is something like 32%. The basis for increasing an existing interest rate was also changed from late payments on the account in question to late payments on ANY BILL you might owe. Thus if the paper boy reports you were late paying him your credit card company may be able to bump your rate from 8% to 29% or even higher. Not only that but no requirement of proof of the legitimacy of the claimed late payment is required. There have been cases of Newspapers that were not ordered being delivered and when payment was not made the credit card company bumped up the interest rate.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander! If individuals are not allowed to escape from a debt load they cannot repay then corporations should not be able to do so either. Of course the only way to accomplish this would be to make the shareholders liable for such debts... ya right I can see that happening!

I can agree the bankruptcy rules needed to be adjusted to prevent intentional abuse, but what has happened is to create a situation where if the country goes into recession many people will be utterly destroyed when they can no longer pay their debts and the creditors can attach whatever meager sources of income they might have. The result is these people will end up on the street.[/QUOTE]

5) The power of the Presidency has been abused to the point of eliminating checks and balances. If you read our constitution and the federalist papers upon which it is founded it is absolutely clear that congress has a responsibilty to impeach President Bush for the Libby commutation. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY WHAT IMPEACHMENT IS FOR - it is not supposed to be used to ruin a Presidency over a blow-job, it is supposed to be used when a President uses executive powers to block investigation of his office when criminal behavior is suspected. The mis-use of "pardons and commutations" is specifically cited as when a President should be impeached!

Libby's commutation? LOL! That's a specified power of governmental executives, your governor may also wield that sort of power. Yeah, there were the outrage of such, just like the Clinton pardons. Power is power.

There is a huge difference between the Clinton pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. None of Clinton's pardons (or commutations) could be construed to have been done to protect the Whitehouse from investigation. The Libby commutation clearly does so.

If you read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, particularly those authored by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, you will see that the one place where the President's right to exercise his power to pardon or commute sentences is impeachment. Furthermore it is clear that the use of pardons or commutations to block investigations preliminary to impeachment are themselves grounds for impeachment!

How can the system work if the President is able to shut down all investigation?

Personally I don't really care if Bush is or is not impeached, however there is a principal to be considered here - is the President above the law?

Just how many of our principals can we give up before we find we have in fact given up our freedoms?

 

[Annie]

I will agree with you - Carter was not a good president. I was simply trying to point out that he inherited so much baggage that he was unable to function in the way he had intended.

and I pointed out the problems weren't 'inherited', rather of his own making and/or handling.

=========================



No comment on this one Kat? This alone is by far the biggest reason I believe Bush will be remembered as the worst President in US history and what may cause the decline of America's super-power position.

Nope, I don't comment on what I agree with in a rebuttal. Do you?

US citizens have been detained without receiving their Constitutional rights under the PA. Some have been held for over a year without access to council or even being charged with specific crimes. Under the PA the Administration can declare anyone an enemy and deny them their rights. That it has only happened in a few instances is irrelevant when considering an absolute right of citizenship.



You apparently have no idea the depth of the data mining that is going on in our country right now. Virtually every phone call, every email, and every transaction is recorded for immediate or future analysis. Cameras are appearing throughout our cities and the video is being stored and mined. Within a few years (if not already) virtually all movements of everyone will be on record.

Yes, I do. Are you aware that it's always been such? They may be holding onto transmission tapes longer, but the NSA has always had the ability to do such.

Cameras are for the most part a local issue. Not so big in my area of Chicago suburbs, huge in the city, but then again, they are issuing tickets based on them.

Sarkozy - The French economy is stalled and this is just his way of trying to jump start it. It has nothing to do with our standing with the French. We will see where this will lead but I have little faith in the French. None of our allies in Afghanistan have really put out. Spend a little time there and you will see that the USA does all the hard/dangerous work there.

Merkel - she is choosing what she considers the lesser of 2 evils. She realizes that China is the real threat to the West both economically and militarily. Again, this does not represent any kind of improvement in America's standing with Germany.

Brown - I assume you mean Gordon Brown? The Brits have been more or less with us from the start. His statements about Afghanistan are pure propoganda BS. Things are perhaps better in Afghanistan than in Iraq, but the situation is declining not improving.

I disagree with all of the above analysis, with the generalization of GB. As I've got to get going on dinner, I'll have to return to this later.

President Bush was very much behind this legislation.

The bankruptcy rules were changed in 2005 by a congress in the pockets of big business - in particular big banks. The problem with the change in the bankruptcy rules is that it only effects individuals. Corporations can still duck their debt by filing for bankruptcy, but individuals cannot.

Furthermore, it puts all the responsibility for credit on the borrower. The banks should be responsible in how they lend and not extend unreasonable amounts of credit to those insufficient means. This change is just the end of a cycle of changes which have set up a future disaster for the American public. First the maximum interest that could be charged was increased from 18.5% to 22.5% to 29.5% and today I believe it is something like 32%. The basis for increasing an existing interest rate was also changed from late payments on the account in question to late payments on ANY BILL you might owe. Thus if the paper boy reports you were late paying him your credit card company may be able to bump your rate from 8% to 29% or even higher. Not only that but no requirement of proof of the legitimacy of the claimed late payment is required. There have been cases of Newspapers that were not ordered being delivered and when payment was not made the credit card company bumped up the interest rate.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander! If individuals are not allowed to escape from a debt load they cannot repay then corporations should not be able to do so either. Of course the only way to accomplish this would be to make the shareholders liable for such debts... ya right I can see that happening!

I can agree the bankruptcy rules needed to be adjusted to prevent intentional abuse, but what has happened is to create a situation where if the country goes into recession many people will be utterly destroyed when they can no longer pay their debts and the creditors can attach whatever meager sources of income they might have. The result is these people will end up on the street.

Actually, while he signed it in 2005, it was 8 years in the making.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7575010/

Bush signs tougher
bankruptcy bill into law
Legislation makes it difficult
for Americans to fully wipe out debts

Larry Downing / Reuters
President Bush shakes hands with co-sponsors of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. “The act of Congress I sign today will protect those who legitimately need help, stop those who try to commit fraud and bring greater stability and fairness to our financial system,” Bush said.

updated 3:58 p.m. CT, Wed., April. 20, 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush signed the biggest rewrite of U.S. bankruptcy law in a quarter century on Wednesday, making it harder for debt-ridden Americans to wipe out their obligations.

“Bankruptcy should always be a last resort in our legal system,” Bush said. “If someone does not pay his or her debts the rest of society ends up paying them.”

Many debtors will have to work out repayment plans instead of having their obligations erased in bankruptcy court under the law, which will go into effect in six months. The 500-page legislation won final congressional approval last week after being pushed for eight years by banks and credit card companies.​

There is a huge difference between the Clinton pardons and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. None of Clinton's pardons (or commutations) could be construed to have been done to protect the Whitehouse from investigation. The Libby commutation clearly does so.

No it didn't, he was convicted, the time for deal making was over.

If you read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, particularly those authored by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, you will see that the one place where the President's right to exercise his power to pardon or commute sentences is impeachment. Furthermore it is clear that the use of pardons or commutations to block investigations preliminary to impeachment are themselves grounds for impeachment!

How can the system work if the President is able to shut down all investigation?

Personally I don't really care if Bush is or is not impeached, however there is a principal to be considered here - is the President above the law?

Just how many of our principals can we give up before we find we have in fact given up our freedoms?

I've read the Federalist Papers several times, I teach Constitution. Please site the #'s and the passages. Thanks.

 

[Gunny]

President Bush should withdraw the troops and replace them with 10,000 Jehovah Witnesses armed with copies of The Watchtower magazine. (He could call it “Operation Iraqi Conversion.”) With all the Muslims hiding behind their doors pretending to be not at home, there will be an end to the sectarian violence between themselves.

Damn. That is probably the first really effective plan I've heard to date!

 

[mattskramer]

LOL did we take a look at our hospitals before we went to war with Germany, Japan, and Italy in WW2? Did Clinton look at our hospitals before we went into Somolia? What kind of dumb comment is that? If your point is Bush didn't do everything right then I agree with you. But the approach you took is not very well thoughtout. Are you implying that before every war we ever fight we need to make sure we have the best support system before defending ourselves or in this case invading? I can see it now Time out Japan and Germany we aren't quite ready for this war come back in 10-15 years when we are. Sometimes wars can't wait and must happen in the now without everything being perfect. Bush and his guys along with 82% of America thought that 2003 was the time. Did he and his guys do everything right? Hell no, but honestly just like you said we have 20/20 hindsight now.

WW II was a mush more critical war. When Japan attacked, we may not have had time to get as prepared as we should. I already gave my criticism of our action in Somalia. My point is that Bush went to war much too soon. I suggest that when we have time, which we clearly had in Iraq, that before we go to war, we check make sure that we have enough armor and supplies, and that we check on the hospitals. I understand that some wars can’t wait – especially those that call for an immediate reaction. The preemptive Iraq war could have waited. Do provide a link to a politically neutral web site that said that 2003 was the right time. Even if 2003 was the right time, the hospitals could have still been checked out and there armor could have been well gathered and stockpiled. Anyone with an interest in protecting and servicing our troops could have seen the simple possibilities of poor hospitals and inadequate armor coming. It was not a “Gee which, we could have never imagined that” incident.

I think instead of crying about the past or pointing fingers at everyone we figure out how to win this thing and get it done with.

I agree. I have also given ideas about how to complete this war and move on.

 

[MasterChief]

Carter's policies did not bring us the Ayatollah...

You are completely wrong. Carter administration put pressure on the Shan to loosen up the laws of his country and allow descent--which began the street demonstrations lead by university students, and spiralled out of control. The end result is the Shan fled the country and the Ayatollah came back. But hey...don't believe me...just read Mark Bowden's book--Guests of The Ayatollah. It's all right there.

And any information about me is classified so don't ask again, please.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you aware that Under Clinton laws were passed that allowed secret courts to try and convict citizens and legal aliens without ever informing them they were even charged with a crime? That laws were passed that allow Police to seize your money based on nothing more than travel habits and YOU have to pay to have the privilage to go to court to prove you did nothing wrong in an effort to get your money back? That laws were passed that allow police to seize your property with no formal charges and YOU have to petition to go to court to prove you should get your property back.

 

[MasterChief]

Carter got a raw deal. He came in on the fair and honesty ticket and was immediately hit with the Iran revolution and hostage situation. Oil prices shot up further damaging an economy that was already weakened by the debt accumulated in the VN war. His Presidency was never able to get out from under these two issues. What could he have done differently?

No, Carter did not get a raw deal. As he admitted in a classroom question and answer session, his political philosophy was not what was needed at that particular time. First, he made deep cuts in military spending which compromised the very military readiness he needed later. Second, he applied pressure on the Shan to liberalize his society which only allowed room for Muslim radicals to operate unimpeded and laid the foundation for the Iran/Iraq War that reduced world oil supply--thus increasing world price of oil. And finally, his refusal to consider a military option only until late in the hostage crisis means the students had time to fortify their positions around the hostages and made America appear impotent to the Islamic world.