Bush's admin legacy in 50 years [Archive] - The Gemstone IV Players' Corner

Kefka

04-04-2006, 11:25 PM

I feel that he hopes his legacy will be defined by Iraq and Afghanistan. If democracy spreads, (which I still feel is unlikely, given the autonomous nature of middle eastern governments historically), Bush will be viewed as the initiator of that. If the move fails and a withdraw is ordered by the next president, he has left it up to others to admit that defeat. In this way, Bush has spun a web of constant "what-ifs" that absolves him of any concrete responsibility. It's actually quite brilliant IMO.

Without the wars, honestly, what does he have? I was wondering that today, which is why I feel that they will be what defines him historically as a US president.

-M

Hmmm... Somehow, I think regardless of who's president when withdrawal is ordered, it will always be seen as Bush's mess.

Parkbandit

04-05-2006, 09:19 AM

People yearn to be free.. not suppressed and kept in poverty while those in power feed off them.

I realize the media paints a dark and dreary picture of Iraq (Then they go and ask the American public their thoughts about Iraq... classic) but there are many great things happening in Iraq right now and have been. The people that don't want this democracy to succeed are those parasites that know their time is up when it does.

10 years is about right imo. We'll see.

Parkbandit

04-05-2006, 09:22 AM

Hmmm... Somehow, I think regardless of who's president when withdrawal is ordered, it will always be seen as Bush's mess.

Only if it turns out bad. I imagine if democracy actually takes root in Iraq and Afganistan..that the winner of '08 will try and take credit for their 'vision'. Republican or Democrat.

Warriorbird

04-05-2006, 10:20 AM

:chuckles: Democracy taking root. That's cute.

People yearn to be free.. not suppressed and kept in poverty while those in power feed off them.

Funny...I would've thought Bush's last election disproved that.

Emo Emu

04-05-2006, 11:14 AM

Drew

04-05-2006, 05:15 PM

Especially if democracy takes root Bush will be looked very favorably in history. Every administration is 'scandal ridden' if you ask the other party, but those quickly fade. I'm reminded of the response the Chicago Times wrote about Abraham Lincoln's Gettyburg Address: "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery ["dishwatery" means "hackneyed"] utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."

As we all know the Gettysburg Address is considered one of the best speeches ever delivered by a US President and Abe Lincoln is universally considered one of the best Presidents (Amusingly people often bring up what 'intelligent foreigners' like the French and Germans think of current President as a means to attack him as well).

Ten years from now Scooter Libby or Abu Grahaib or whatever your paticular favorite scandal is will be a dim memory. Fifty years from now they will be forgotten. I mean, does anyone even really remember anything specific about the Whitewater scandals, any women who alledged rape other than Monica Lewinsky, or the guy Clinton supposedly had killed? Not really.

I know it most likely pains my liberal friends on the board to admit it; but if Democracy only takes place in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush will be viewed a very good President. But if it spreads around the middle east he will be viewed as a great and historical President.

xtc

04-05-2006, 05:28 PM

I'm reminded of the response the Chicago Times wrote about Abraham Lincoln's Gettyburg Address

How old are you?

utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States."

pre-CNN

Amusingly people often bring up what 'intelligent foreigners' like the French and Germans think of current President as a means to attack him as well

We don't have to go that far, we can quote intelligent American opinions to attack him.

Abu Grahaib or whatever your paticular favorite scandal is will be a dim memory. Fifty years from now they will be forgotten.

I am sure in 50 years the Iraq war will be remembered and studied as what not to do

I know it most likely pains my liberal friends on the board to admit it; but if Democracy only takes place in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush will be viewed a very good President. But if it spreads around the middle east he will be viewed as a great and historical President.

I don't see myself as a liberal but I am sure some people on this board do. I am less concerned with Bush's repuation than the fate of the Iraqi people.

Sean of the Thread

04-05-2006, 05:35 PM

I am less concerned with Bush's repuation than the fate of the Iraqi people.

And their fate is far better now then it was under Hussein.

Drew

04-05-2006, 06:31 PM

I am sure in 50 years the Iraq war will be remembered and studied as what not to do

Time will tell of course. In XTC's world I'm sure a 120 year old Sadam Hussein, that benevolent dictator would still be ruling Iraq with his gentle hand fifty years from now.

Warriorbird

04-05-2006, 06:55 PM

Right. Way to put words in someone's mouth, Drew. I'm proud!

A lot of conservative dissent (and despite what you may claim, XTC IS a conservative) about the war is not over it occuring but how messed up it has been.

Continue marching to the beat of the Bush however. I'm sure God loves you for it.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

04-05-2006, 07:23 PM

I guess there's really no way to tell what his legacy will be.

I think a few things could definitely go wrong and seal him in as a bad president.. if the republicans loose the Senate Majority in this upcoming election, for instance, there's talk about trying to get Bush impeached... and if that works all the memos and the scandals are really gonna break.

The CIA Leak, the Lobbying Scandal, Downing Street, Enron, the Haliburton Scandals, and more recently the Dubai Ports Deal..

On top of that if Genocides occuring in Africa (Darfur and the Sudan, specifically) don't stop soon, if we go into war with Iran over nuclear weapons, if our economy crashes because of China owning most of the US, and if we lose Iraq to civil war, yeah Bush is screwed.

His entire presidency is riddled with corruption and leaks and poor planning, even on the home front.. look at New Orleans as we approach nearly a year after Katrina.. look at the investigations STILL going on about Fema and the Government saying "We didn't know!" when the rest of the world was watching it on CNN.

I'm of the firm belief that good comes from everything but I find it hard to believe that Bush has a great chance of leaving a good legacy when his own party is calling conferences to do "damage control" in the wake of this administration.

It's fair to say that every presidency had it's bad things happen.. Clinton had his sex scandal of course and the mess-up when trying to go into Somalia, among a few other "oops" moments. And yeah, if nothing else gets messed up from here on out for Bush and if everything goes as planned and democracy is built in the next three years in Iraq and Afghanistan and we make peace with Iran and we figure out a way to pay off our enormous deficit and debts to foreign countries, then yeah.. Bush has a chance of being remembered as a good president. I just don't know how great those chances are when less than 30 percent of his country even believes in him.

radamanthys

04-05-2006, 07:35 PM

as well-intentioned but bumbling

Yea, we all know that the war coulda been run better. In a perfect world, it woulda taken 1 marine 1 day to walk in, put Saddam in cuffs and walk out with him, and have the rest of the country/world rejoice. However it's not like that. He had supporters. Just like if someone came and tried to do that to our president, some would rejoice (even on these boards, I think, secretly at least), and some would fight tooth and nail against the idea of it. And there was no telling how tough this would be coming into it. Bush and co. probably assumed it would be like the gulf war, where Iraqi soldiers just said "screw this" and surrendered.

Saddam was a bad man, in our eyes, but not everyones. There's doubt he was a danger to others, though, and that whatever means were there, the ends probably justify them. Long, expensive way from point A to B though.

However, I wish other politicians were like him. There's no doubt to where he stands on any issue. He's pretty damned clear about what he wants/ will do, etc. (I heard one person say, "Yea, he's too dumb to lie well, and after clinton, who was a slimy genius, it's kinda refreshing").

Back

04-05-2006, 10:00 PM

radamanthys

04-05-2006, 10:36 PM

That was Clinton's fault.

ElanthianSiren

04-05-2006, 10:39 PM

Even if it could have been multiple choice, I wouldn't have done that. I wanted individuals to try to pick as concrete an answer as they could, so I could compare those answers to the hundreds of sampled answers in other polls; I can't guarantee each poll isn't answered by the same folks, but I'm trying to get a large sample size. Plus, I was curious.

-M

Sean of the Thread

04-05-2006, 11:07 PM

Your sample will only represent forum posters that have had a connection with gemstone. Extremely narrow.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

04-05-2006, 11:10 PM

That was Clinton's fault.

If it had been Clinton coming into office after Bush, I'd blame it on Clinton. It's the Administration that's in power when it happens that gets the blame. In the official comissioner's report notices about the potential attack WERE being recieved by the Bush Administration, so its not like George Bush had been sworn in the day before and didn't have any clue at all.

Do I lay the blame for 9/11 at Bush's feet? No.. I don't know if it COULD have been easily prevented (besides better airport security). But it IS a fact it happened while he was in office.. therefore it's on his record.

Sean of the Thread

04-05-2006, 11:16 PM

It's a moot point what you guys think now. Chavez has vowed to get to the bottom of 9/11 for us! Agreeing to his long term fixed crude price of $50 per barrel may or may not have something to do with what he discovers in his investigation.

radamanthys

04-05-2006, 11:16 PM

haha, I was just being a jackass. Wanna know who's fault it REALLY was?

the bastards who did it.

Back

04-05-2006, 11:35 PM

haha, I was just being a jackass. Wanna know who's fault it REALLY was?

the bastards who did it.

Double true.

ElanthianSiren

04-05-2006, 11:36 PM

Your sample will only represent forum posters that have had a connection with gemstone. Extremely narrow.

Not really. With that logic, you could whittle a sample size for anything down to almost nothing. You could say -- a sample of 1000 men, then say... no a sample of 1000 men with black hair, black hair and blue green eyes! In my case, it's a sample of IP addresses, provided they are unique and that people with multiple post names didn't vote more than once.

-M

Drew

04-05-2006, 11:39 PM

(and despite what you may claim, XTC IS a conservative)

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

I'm a classical libertarian by the by.

Sean of the Thread

04-05-2006, 11:43 PM

Sean of the Thread

04-05-2006, 11:44 PM

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

I'm a classical libertarian by the by.

Migrates south like a duck when it supports his view of the week. :X

Back

04-05-2006, 11:46 PM

Not really. With that logic, you could whittle a sample size for anything down to almost nothing. You could say -- a sample of 1000 men, then say... no a sample of 1000 men with black hair, black hair and blue green eyes! In my case, it's a sample of IP addresses, provided they are unique and that people with multiple post names didn't vote more than once.

-M

I'd say the results are probably pretty close to public opinion at this point. There is only one group who effectively fixes polls since there is no real paper trail and dead people along with supposed convicted felons with similar names (John Smith) can't even vote.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

04-06-2006, 12:04 AM

haha, I was just being a jackass. Wanna know who's fault it REALLY was?

the bastards who did it.

You know I was just thinking that exact same thing. :)

ElanthianSiren

04-06-2006, 12:09 AM

It's not really debatable. This poll's sample is representative of internet forum posters that have had a connection with gemstone.

For example the AP polls 1000 random adults in the continental U.S. about therefore their sample is not extremly narrow especially based on a national topic.

Except that I am combining these results with the results of the other polls, that's correct. Not all the polls I've used have been connected to GS. If I wanted to, I could use spreadsheet to try to see if the datum that I'm looking at (from us) is skewed, which it may be based on your reasoning, were I to use multiple trendlines.

-M

Parkbandit

04-06-2006, 04:06 PM

Parkbandit

04-06-2006, 04:10 PM

Yearn to be free?

Give me a break. As far as voting, people vote what makes their lives more comfortable. Whether it is giving up some freedom for safety or supporting those that take on unpopular causes.

- Luke

Being what.. 18 and living in the US.. you are clearly clueless what many places in the rest of the world is. People are oppressed and people are dirt poor because their leaders are keeping them that way. Do you really think the people of Iraq were better off with Saddam?

Parkbandit

04-06-2006, 04:11 PM

Would love for this to have been a multiple choice.

I don't think we need more time to figure this one out. Its been almost 6 years already and its pretty clear how things have panned out from day one. Year 8 should be a hoot.

Does anyone see allowing 9/11 to happen as one of the first failures? Ok well, second, after lowering taxes for the top 2% of the country?

Oh yes.. I keep forgetting that Bush could have prevented 9-11, but he allowed it to happen so he could go to war with Iraq and get his good friends the oil from there.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

xtc

04-06-2006, 04:14 PM

And their fate is far better now then it was under Hussein.

lol that was funny. They are fearful to leave their front door in some places and they are facing a civil war, so much better....lol

If this war is about freedom why aren't we in Sudan or North Korea?

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

xtc

04-06-2006, 04:17 PM

Time will tell of course. In XTC's world I'm sure a 120 year old Sadam Hussein, that benevolent dictator would still be ruling Iraq with his gentle hand fifty years from now.

When did I ever say I liked Saddam? I know Rumsfeld did at one point and so did Bush Senior. America financed him, helped him rise to power. We gave him weapons in the 80's.

I think what you have is Rumsfeld's 80's vision of Iraq.

xtc

04-06-2006, 04:23 PM

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck.

I'm a classical libertarian by the by.

I am Pro-Life.
I am a Capitalist.
I like flat tax cuts - not graduated ones
I would ship every illegal immigrant back to where they came from and I am against Bush's guest worker program - You don't reward criminals.
I spent my morning on the phone with the President of the Conservative party riding association where I live.
I have voted Republican and Conservative in the past.

Up until Bush came to power I wouldn't have thought about voting for a Democrat.

I consider myself a conservative but a political independent.

If you are a classic libertarian you must be against the war in Iraq.

DeV

04-06-2006, 04:35 PM

Do you really think the people of Iraq were better off with Saddam?I honestly don't think most Americans gave a damn about the people or state of Iraq prior to 9/11.

xtc

04-06-2006, 04:52 PM

Being what.. 18 and living in the US.. you are clearly clueless what many places in the rest of the world is. People are oppressed and people are dirt poor because their leaders are keeping them that way. Do you really think the people of Iraq were better off with Saddam?

I am a little older than 18, getting older by the day. I have also had the advantage of having visited many places in the world. As it stands now, yes they were better under Saddam. I hope in the future the Iraqi people will have a brighter future but as it stands now they are on the precipice of civil war.

Mighty Nikkisaurus

04-06-2006, 04:55 PM

I'm hardcore progressive politically (except progressives don't agree with the immigration stuff Bush is putting out and I do) but my personal values/beliefs are pretty conservative.

As for the War in Iraq, as much as I hate it I don't think it's about oil because Russia has offered us all the oil we could ever want. But it's bullshit to think we're in there because Saddam was somehow related to September 11th and that's what the President has everyone thinking. 70% of the troops FIGHTING over there think that. That's incredible. Bush said that Saddam would harbor and help terrorists. Let's think about this for a moment.

1. Saddam was a dictator, therefore he had a totalitarian regime.

2. Saddam was militaristic, not religiously zealous. Most pictures you find of him are pictures of him in military fatigues, not traditional muslim dress.

3. Baghdad, the capital city of Iraq, had one of the best nightlife club scenes in all of the Middle east. Shari'a law is a strict muslim law where women can't go anywhere without a male escort, can't work and hold jobs, can't have ANY part of their body uncovered. Iraq did not have Shari'a law, obviously, if it has the best night life. Women wouldn't be out after dark, dancing nontheless.

4. On top of this, women in Iraq went to college and worked as professionals in many fields.

5. Osama Bin Laden, the guy who really IS behind 9-11, was leader of the Taliban, which ruled Afghanistan under Shari'a law. Afghanistan therefore did not have night clubs, did not have women working professionally.

6. Why would Saddam Hussein allow a radical muslim group to come and go through his country, as well as aid them with weapons, when his country is NOT ruled by Shari'a law and is against the doctrine of the Taliban, who successfully overthrew ANOTHER Government that was similar to Saddam's? There's a simple solution: He wouldn't. Saddam may be a mass murderer and a sick bastard, but he didn't stay in power all those years by being stupid. Saddam Hussein would have NEVER aided the Taliban because it would have taken power away from him. Saddam probably laughed when he found out about 9/11, but he had nothing to do with it.

As for liberating an opressed people, I feel that Iraq DID need attention but they way we went in was incredibly stupid and we are in without an exit strategy. We should have went in, got Saddam, and left. Then let another country that WASN'T the invader, help them rebuild. But no, we want to do it all ourselves nevermind that a country will never accept its invader's "help" to rebuild. We should have handed Saddam over to the United Nations, but we didn't because we believe in the Death Penalty and the UN doesn't, and we're going to kill him. If this was really all about human rights, why didn't we make the case for that in the beginning?

And for that matter what makes Iraq more important than the Sudan? The Sudan has WAY more people being slaughtered by their Government and the Janjaweed, WAY more openly, than Iraq.

I don't believe anything that comes from this Administration anymore. Someone previously made the comment about Bush being incapable of lying and being strong where he stands (whether right or wrong) and Clinton being a slimy genius. I disagree that Bush can't lie.. he can lie and his administration DOES lie, a la "We're going in for WMDs!" and then "We're going in for Human Rights!"

I'd rather have a President not stand definite on anything because the world is constantly changing and be "slimy" and a "genius" then have another President like Bush. A lot of the problems in the world can't be solved with just fighting and weapons anymore. If that was the case, this Palestine/Isreal conflict would be over. Sheer force only works so much.

Anyway, I'm done with my long political rant now :D

- Issi

ElanthianSiren

04-06-2006, 05:02 PM

Bush couldn't go in under nation building because in his political debates and speeches, he swore off nation building. There had to be another reason IMO, or he would have lost credibility with conservatives, and he was, back then, a single term president.

I'm surprised nobody's jumped on Libby's accusation that Bush and Cheney themselves told him to leak the Iraq-related info. Hearsay, but if true and can be proven true, goes completely against the grain of what the administration has said about deploring that practice. As I voted, too early to tell.

-M

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 05:36 PM

lol that was funny. They are fearful to leave their front door in some places and they are facing a civil war, so much better....lol

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

You're right. Genocide and torture is a much more pleasant. Put Hussein back in power. The "possibility" of civil war is much better then being oppressed and terrorized by a ruthless genocidal torturing delusional dictator with no regard for his people. Do you honestly think that Marines are ther to HURT the people of Iraq? Idiot.

They're afraid to go out their front door because of extremists bombing and shooting everyone. Idiot.

Weapons of mass destruction is another issue. The did exist for a fact several times.. one of which he used them against his own people (aka genocide). If fuckface had any common sense he would have been rid of all evidence prior to the unavoidable invasion (mmm iran?). Perhaps making them vanish was all part of his "mastermind plan" to give fuel to you dimmer bulbs around the world. Idiots.

With all the stupid fucking conspiracies that you fucks come up with don't you think the most plausible idea would have been to plant them ourselfs? According to most of you idiots we planted Hussein.. what's a lil chem dust or nuke delivery device? Idiot.

Blacklash has already surrendered to the Xyelin voice of reason... are you next? (lol)

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 05:37 PM

I honestly don't think most Americans gave a damn about the people or state of Iraq prior to 9/11.

What does that do with if you think they're better off now?

Warriorbird

04-06-2006, 05:39 PM

About as much as Parkbandit's bullshit about building Democracy and attempting to insult me by referring to an organization I left.

And Drew... how the flying fuck are you a libertarian with some of the stuff I've seen you post? I'm a libertarian.

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 05:43 PM

Who are you to tell drew he isn't a Libertarian? Are you a better libertarian than him.. if so what makes you believe that?

The hypocrisy from you fruits is rediculuous around here.

DeV

04-06-2006, 05:50 PM

What does that do with if you think they're better off now?Whether or not they are better off now is still up for debate in my opinion. I am positive I am not alone in that assessment.

Stanley Burrell

04-06-2006, 05:53 PM

This has probably been asked before, but I did a search and didn't find any threads specifically for this. How do you think this administration (inc. congress) will be remembered in fifty years?

Differently in the annuls of United States lore and legend as opposed to the historical literature of Iraq.

As easy as it is to click on the final option via the voting feature a la Players' Corner, it is nothing short of scientific fact that future literature specifically pertaining to the Bush administration, so sayeth the proverbial history book of 2056 C.E., will document the following:

"in passing, without much regard."

That, and I want to feel better about being in the minority :-X

Warriorbird

04-06-2006, 05:59 PM

Who are you to tell drew he isn't a Libertarian? Are you a better libertarian than him.. if so what makes you believe that?

The hypocrisy from you fruits is rediculuous around here.

-Xyelin

And the racism and homophobia from "I wanna be a dumbfuck yet I'm so intellectual" you is pretty thick. Come off it.

Libetarians are theoretically about fiscal conservatism yet social liberty. I've seen him espouse the exact opposite, shilling for Bush's wanton spending and repressive social nonsense. It's sort of like you talking about cheap sex yet going on and on about how great Bush is. Or Ganalon talking about how he hates the influences of religion on the world and is all fiscal conservative...yet defending Bush's reckless spending and faith based governance. Bush doesn't have your values. You're getting played. Now, does that mean that the Democrats do? Fuck no. I don't even think they really have mine...but that still doesn't explain all the "I'm a sheep for Bush" attitude.

If Drew wouldn't have suggested that xtc wasn't a conservative because xtc disagreed with him...I wouldn't have said anything about him.

Parkbandit

04-06-2006, 06:10 PM

I am a little older than 18, getting older by the day. I have also had the advantage of having visited many places in the world. As it stands now, yes they were better under Saddam. I hope in the future the Iraqi people will have a brighter future but as it stands now they are on the precipice of civil war.

I guess if I quoted you and not Emo Emu.. you might have a point.

No.. I guess you wouldn't have a point. If you think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than a democratic government.. then you haven't been watching the same liberal media I have.

And please, please, please.. stop using the same old libral talking points. "Precipice of civil war" Come on... at least make your own phrases up for crying out loud.

Parkbandit

04-06-2006, 06:13 PM

Where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Blame the entire world.. not just Bush for the wmds. Blame Saddam for making people believe he had them. Blame Saddam for not living up to the conditions of the first Gulf War surrender. Blame Saddam for not complying with the UN Resolutions. Blame Saddam for not cooperating with the Inspectors.

Thanks

Warriorbird

04-06-2006, 07:00 PM

Shockingly enough, Parkbandit... there are people who aren't liberal that are against the war.

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 08:50 PM

And the racism and homophobia from "I wanna be a dumbfuck yet I'm so intellectual" you is pretty thick. Come off it.

Lol you just called me racist and homophobic.

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 08:51 PM

Whether or not they are better off now is still up for debate in my opinion. I am positive I am not alone in that assessment.

So by the same comparison I wonder if the German people and over half of Europe would are better off without Hitler. I am positive I am not alone in that assessment.. just ask the neo nazis.

Warriorbird

04-06-2006, 08:56 PM

When you have that avatar up and you use "fruits" as an insult...if it looks like a duck, talks like a duck, and walks like a duck... it IS a duck. Doesn't mean it is your basic nature...and you probably don't think of yourself that way, but I call the actions when I see the actions.

And also good call Godwin's Lawing the thread.

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 09:09 PM

Well then you're more ignorant than I thought. Believe what you want however.

As far as godwin's lawing the thread that's up to you. It's a simple example and one perfectly suited to her statement. Insert any ruthless dictator in the statement and it works just as well.

The only rebuttal you can come up with is .. RACIST HOMOPHOBE!! HOW DARE YOU BRING UP NAZIS! (even if it is 100% spot on in this discussion). Congrats to you sir.

Warriorbird

04-06-2006, 09:16 PM

Sort of like your only rebuttal earlier was calling me and everyone else against the war gay? Yeah, you're clearly coming into a discussion from a purely intellectual level.

If you want to talk about Nazis, I suppose we could talk about Prescott Bush or the administration coddling up to China...or babying North Korea. Clearly, Saddam is a greater threat though. We could talk about Darfur but I doubt you even know where it is. We could talk about a lot of things, but your mind is pretty one track.

"I loves me some Bush!"

:rolls eyes:

Sean of the Thread

04-06-2006, 09:29 PM

I didn't call anyone gay you dumbfuck. Fruit does not equal gay. Fruit = nut.

My posts are hardly ever supporting Bush.. they are however supporting reason.

None of your examples above have anything to do with the fact that you or anyone else think that the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein.. which is what this discussion is about. Sudan has become the fall back argument flavor of the week for the idiots lately.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some Sudanese gay men to lynch.

Back

04-07-2006, 12:01 AM

Blame the entire world.. not just Bush for the wmds. Blame Saddam for making people believe he had them. Blame Saddam for not living up to the conditions of the first Gulf War surrender. Blame Saddam for not complying with the UN Resolutions. Blame Saddam for not cooperating with the Inspectors.

Thanks

Blame EVERYONE EXCEPT our president whose responsibility it is to know the facts before telling our armed services to go die for a cause.

PB, its unfortunate that you decide to completely ignore the facts. Saddam did cooperate with the UN resolutions, the inspectors, and on top of that had no WMDs. The only reason I will defend Saddam in this situation is for the sake of innocent lives both American and Iraqi. Iraq was not a threat to the US.

Warriorbird

04-07-2006, 01:08 AM

None of your examples above have anything to do with the fact that you or anyone else think that the Iraqi people are better off with Hussein.. which is what this discussion is about. Sudan has become the fall back argument flavor of the week for the idiots lately.

I'm sorry that you're a moron. It must be difficult. I suggested a LONG time ago that I thought getting rid of Saddam was perfectly fine...just that we had and were going about it WAY wrong and it was a distraction ploy to make America get over 9-11. While Democrats may be sucked into a Moveon for Clinton, Iraq was a moveon for the fact that we weren't catching Bin Ladin.

It's the "democracy building" and the LACK of effective profiteering that get me about it more. I'm not some moral defender of Saddam Hussein. I'd have just rather us invaded where the person who did the damage to our country is actually residing if we were going to flout international law for no good purpouse (it could be for a good purpouse, but we're fucking it up).

And while you may attempt to pull off the "I'm stupid" thing occassionally, it doesn't mean everyone else does. You knew what you meant by your lame insult. You know what you mean by your avatar designed to stereotype. I'm sorry that you don't have enough moral fiber to grasp that.

Parkbandit

04-07-2006, 10:00 AM

Blame EVERYONE EXCEPT our president whose responsibility it is to know the facts before telling our armed services to go die for a cause.

PB, its unfortunate that you decide to completely ignore the facts. Saddam did cooperate with the UN resolutions, the inspectors, and on top of that had no WMDs. The only reason I will defend Saddam in this situation is for the sake of innocent lives both American and Iraqi. Iraq was not a threat to the US.

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Saddam did cooperate with the UN resolutions? Saddam did cooperate with the inspectors?? WTF planet are you fucking on??? You claim that I am ignoring the facts when in the next sentence you post that bullshit?

Come on man.. at LEAST use a different paragraph when you post like that.. you will still look like a hypocrite, but not a retarded one.

Warriorbird

04-07-2006, 10:23 AM

Saddam did not cooperate with the UN Resolutions. That doesn't actually serve to make much of anything Parkbandit has said accurate, but it is true, none the less.

Latrinsorm

04-07-2006, 11:10 AM

You know what you mean by your avatar designed to stereotype.I usually don't get where you get your bizarre accusations from, but this one is the weirdest I've seen in awhile. Usually you just take the opposite of what people say and pretend they said that, but how the heck do you get *any* racial overtones from his avatar whatsoever? It's like saying my avatar suggests I'm pro choice or something, what's the connection?

xtc

04-07-2006, 12:54 PM

I guess if I quoted you and not Emo Emu.. you might have a point.

No.. I guess you wouldn't have a point. If you think the Iraqis were better off under Saddam than a democratic government.. then you haven't been watching the same liberal media I have.

And please, please, please.. stop using the same old libral talking points. "Precipice of civil war" Come on... at least make your own phrases up for crying out loud.

It was my own phrase. I have been predicting civil war since the invasion way before the "liberal media" started discussing it.

What percentage of Iraq is under threat of death now as compared to when Saddam was in?

How long has this war been going on?

Iraqi Christians, Sunni's and some Shi'ites I talk to believe they were better off under Saddam then they are today.

xtc

04-07-2006, 01:33 PM

You're right. Genocide and torture is a much more pleasant. Put Hussein back in power. The "possibility" of civil war is much better then being oppressed and terrorized by a ruthless genocidal torturing delusional dictator with no regard for his people. Do you honestly think that Marines are ther to HURT the people of Iraq? Idiot.

If America was concerned with human rights we wouldn't trade with China and we would be in Sudan stopping the Genocide that is going on there. Possibility of a civil war? What planet are you? We have the Shi'ites at war with the Sunnis in Iraq, sounds like civil war to me.

Are the Marines shooting Iraqis? If so I guess they are there to hurt people, and let's not forget Abu Ghraib

They're afraid to go out their front door because of extremists bombing and shooting everyone. Idiot.

Who destablized Iraq enough to allow the likes of Al Zarqawi to operate in Iraq?

Weapons of mass destruction is another issue. The did exist for a fact several times.. one of which he used them against his own people (aka genocide). If fuckface had any common sense he would have been rid of all evidence prior to the unavoidable invasion (mmm iran?). Perhaps making them vanish was all part of his "mastermind plan" to give fuel to you dimmer bulbs around the world. Idiots.

Lol you are incredible. The border disputes that started the Iran/Iraq war go back to Mesopotamia. Just another example of how everything that happens in that region is rooted in history and how actions taken in that area have repercussions for centuries (something Bush and Co failed to think about when they invaded Iraq.

The fact Iraq had WMD in the 80's (provided by America) doesn't mean they have them know. There have been years of UN inspectors pouring through Iraq. Whatever weapons they had from the 80's are long gone. However many US corporations like Honeywell made a lot of money selling weapons to Iraq.

With all the stupid fucking conspiracies that you fucks come up with don't you think the most plausible idea would have been to plant them ourselfs? According to most of you idiots we planted Hussein.. what's a lil chem dust or nuke delivery device? Idiot.

It was/is too risky to try and plant weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The risk outways the reward. Too many would have to know about it and if it got out the political fallout would be more than Bush and his administration could handle.

After it came to light that Bush's wanted to paint a US military plane to look like a UN plane and fly it over Iraq, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush considered planting WMD's in Iraq.

Check your history we financed and helped Saddam get to power.

Blacklash has already surrendered to the Xyelin voice of reason... are you next? (lol)

Get real, why don't you vacate the political board and leaving the thinking to the adults. Having you here is like bringing a 6 shooter to a Moose hunt.

DeV

04-07-2006, 02:02 PM

So by the same comparison I wonder if the German people and over half of Europe would are better off without Hitler. I am positive I am not alone in that assessment.. just ask the neo nazis.And the German people, fat with bounty, kept quiet for the most part throughout their leader's reign of terror. I don't dispute your comparison because frankly my dear I don't give a damn about what the German people thought.

Iraq being better off is still up for debate in my opinion and others on this very board. That still stands despite any comparisons you might cough up now or in the future.

Sean of the Thread

04-07-2006, 02:50 PM

Yes because being gassed and executed and dumped in mass graves by your own leader is so much better than the current U.S. Occupation of Iraq. Wow Dev you really put me in my place this time.

Back

04-07-2006, 02:52 PM

Saddam did cooperate with the UN resolutions? Saddam did cooperate with the inspectors?? WTF planet are you fucking on??? You claim that I am ignoring the facts when in the next sentence you post that bullshit?

Come on man.. at LEAST use a different paragraph when you post like that.. you will still look like a hypocrite, but not a retarded one.

Iraq agreed to Resolution 1441. They allowed inspectors back into Iraq. Now, having said that, they certainly did play some cat and mouse games with the inspectors, but ultimately no chemical or biological weapons or even programs to make them were found.

xtc

04-07-2006, 02:59 PM

Yes because being gassed and executed and dumped in mass graves by your own leader is so much better than the current U.S. Occupation of Iraq. Wow Dev you really put me in my place this time.

What is the current death toll in Iraq? Civilian deaths reported are in the mid 30 thousand range with estimated deaths considerably higher. How many US soldiers have died?

The US War College study concluded that the Kurds who were gassed in the 80's was done by Iran not Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1107406800&en=f739f76a82662a7c&ei=5070&oref=regi

Sean of the Thread

04-07-2006, 03:11 PM

New York Times
By EDWARD WONG
Published: April 5, 2006

Edited for length

"BAGHDAD, Iraq, April 4 — The Iraqi court trying Saddam Hussein announced Tuesday that it had charged him with genocide, saying he sought to annihilate the Kurdish people in 1988, when the military killed at least 50,000 Kurdish civilians and destroyed 2,000 villages.

It was during this campaign that thousands of women, children and men were buried in mass graves in many locations," Raid Juhi, the chief judge of the Iraqi High Tribunal's investigative court, said at a news conference.

The Kurds, who make up a fifth of Iraq's people, tried to fight back, but Mr. Hussein used chemical weapons, including mustard gas and nerve agents.

Judge Juhi said the court had gathered enough evidence, like documents and mass graves, to prosecute the defendants in the deaths of at least 50,000 civilians. Kurdish officials and human rights advocates said the death toll had been much higher. They also said the Anfal campaign began years earlier, with other massacres and forced migrations.

The parties agree that at the very least, hundreds of thousands were arrested, tortured, relocated or killed.

But they say that the Anfal massacres and the suppression of the Shiite uprising of 1991, which resulted in up to 150,000 deaths, are the two cases that go much more directly to the heart of Mr. Hussein's murderous rule..."

Nuff said.

Sean of the Thread

04-07-2006, 03:15 PM

This argument isn't about the numbers anyways. It's about some of you somehow trying to make an argument that the Iraqi people would have been better off living under the grip of that murderous monster? You can make the argument that we may be better off living without Bush... but you have no ground at all to tout Hussein as a better option.

Sometimes some of you need to take a step back.. a deep breath.. and admit that your fruity stances for the sake of arguing with the "other side" (not so in my case) are completely redicoulous and move on.

DeV

04-07-2006, 03:49 PM

Yes because being gassed and executed and dumped in mass graves by your own leader is so much better than the current U.S. Occupation of Iraq. Be more specific next time. The German Jews/homosexuals/Jehovah's Witnesses/Gypsies and so on were certainly better off due to the reaction of almost the world save the Axis powers. It's safe to say our reasons for entering the war and having a hand in the the fate of the Jews et al. was not for humanitarian reasons, but the outcome certainly outweighed any initial reservations our leaders held at the time.

Comparing the positive aspects of the war in Iraq to what happened in Germany is akin to comparing the negative aspects to what happened in Vietnam. In my opinion.

P.S. Like WB, I'm glad as hell Saddam is out of power. No one is saying otherwise as far as I can guage. My reluctance at suggesting the Iraqi people are not automatically better off just because Saddam is out of power would mean overlooking the current state of civil war the country has been thrust into. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that Saddam does not enter the equation, for me at least, in making this assessment. I'm very optomistic about the final outcome of Iraq as a whole but for the time being I'm certainly not blind to the fact of what is currently occuring on a day to day basis.

The war was over once victory was declared back in 2003.

Skirmisher

04-07-2006, 04:31 PM

I think that eventually the Iraqi people will be far better off without Saddam.

I also think there is at the very least sufficient room to debate if they are better off at this point though.

Drew

04-07-2006, 04:52 PM

I think that eventually the Iraqi people will be far better off without Saddam.

I also think there is at the very least sufficient room to debate if they are better off at this point though.

But we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq in the first place?

Warriorbird

04-07-2006, 07:22 PM

This argument isn't about the numbers anyways. It's about some of you somehow trying to make an argument that the Iraqi people would have been better off living under the grip of that murderous monster? You can make the argument that we may be better off living without Bush... but you have no ground at all to tout Hussein as a better option.

Except I never said any of that... so your generalizations are pretty lame.

And hint, Latrin, it's in the text and the photoedit.

Warriorbird

04-07-2006, 07:25 PM

But we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq in the first place?

I'd have much rather we kept invading wherever until Bin Ladin was dead.

We could have dealt with Saddam far more easily in the original war. We also shouldn't have done things like started our "democracy building" process with no one who spoke Arabic on the team. It's stuff like that. Alternately, we could have just bumped him off. It isn't like a Shiite country that will go "We love you, Iran!" when we leave is a thrilling example of democracy. The insurgency has continued for years as well. People tend to forget how the Baath got to power.

Sean of the Thread

04-07-2006, 11:34 PM

Except I never said any of that... so your generalizations are pretty lame.

And hint, Latrin, it's in the text and the photoedit.

That post wasn't directed at you but you felt the need to defend yourself anways.. odd.

What exactly about the text in my avatar is racist? Where does your avatar with a black man speaking in ebonics to an asian with her own language problems rank in the land of avatar racisim and stereotypes?

I'm about as homophobic and racist as you are happily married.

Sean of the Thread

04-07-2006, 11:37 PM

I'd have much rather we kept invading wherever until Bin Ladin was dead.

We could have dealt with Saddam far more easily in the original war. We also shouldn't have done things like started our "democracy building" process with no one who spoke Arabic on the team. It's stuff like that. Alternately, we could have just bumped him off. It isn't like a Shiite country that will go "We love you, Iran!" when we leave is a thrilling example of democracy. The insurgency has continued for years as well. People tend to forget how the Baath got to power.

Those are some great ideas. You should be the person that makes all those decisions for the American people.

Warriorbird

04-08-2006, 12:34 AM

I'll get in line right after you...Xyelin, expert on all things!

The answer is my avatar isn't suggesting that just because a crazy woman is of a specific race that she's a "crackhead." It's showing two people and making fun of both of them. You clearly pulled it from Neil Boortz anyways. Would you have made the same comment if she was white? Would Boortz have? I don't think so. Sure, she may be stupid, but that doesn't give you justification to be equally dumb.

You make a general post attacking everyone who believes differently than you and accuse them of untrue things (non specific of course) and you don't expect a response? Smart.

I didn't take it there but at least I had the sense to get out of my marriage before I stooped to your level...and we both know what I'm talking about...and the sense to not have children with something insecure.

Latrinsorm

04-08-2006, 01:34 AM

Back

04-08-2006, 02:06 AM

Where I'm from crackhead is colloquially understood as a general term for dummy. Some people don't feel the need to ascribe racial subtexts to every term and event.

If Xyelin *was* racist, don't you think he'd have come up with a more racially suggestive (to normal people, I mean) term than "crackhead"?

If? Well, he's sexist, homophobic and everything else by his own posts.

Surprised to see you defend that sort of activity, Latrin, especially when its been directed at you.

Even if crackhead is a colloquialism. In context however...

Warriorbird

04-08-2006, 02:19 AM

Latrin likes rationalizing.

Back

04-08-2006, 02:23 AM

Rationalizing? Or denial? Tricky road.

Both are subterfuge.

Latrinsorm

04-08-2006, 02:31 AM

On the contrary, I consider racism extremely morally reprehensible. A necessary corollary to this is that accusations of racism made willy-nilly will not be taken seriously. Pretty much all of Warriorbird's accusations are made willy-nilly, but this one in particular struck me.

In short, something is not the case simply because Warriorbird says so. I am not defending racism, I am defending a person wrongfully accused (or at the very least, accused without grounds) of racism.

Warriorbird

04-08-2006, 02:34 AM

Right. Just like you love gay people but don't think they should get married.

:whistles:

Nothing wrong ever happens. No one says things they shouldn't. I mean, saying "Oh gosh. That's so gay." is just fine for example. Damn, those Irish are alcoholics. Jews are all about the money! When you want to insult a crazy black woman, you call her a crackhead! Its just natural! I mean...nothing wrong with it. It clearly has nothing to do with race!

This all ties perfectly into Bush's legacy. Everything wrong is right again!

Sean of the Thread

04-08-2006, 03:27 AM

>>I didn't take it there but at least I had the sense to get out of my marriage before I stooped to your level...and we both know what I'm talking about...and the sense to not have children with something insecure.<<

Uh no we both don't know what you're talking about?

Last I checked any person of any race can be classified a crackhead. I'm sorry your that YOU stereotype black people as crackheads. The dumb shit looked like a crack head in that picture thus the entertainment. I have no idea who neil boortz is. I got that picture from a fox article.

>>You make a general post attacking everyone who believes differently than you and accuse them of untrue things (non specific of course) and you don't expect a response? Smart.<<

That made absolutely no sense. Care to clarify? I hardly make general posts attacking everyone who "believes" differentely than me. I usually make SPECIFIC posts attacking the redicoulous that goes on around here. Oddly enough rarely do the redicoulous posts come from anyone other than blacklash, xtc or wb.
I'm certain that you would be surprised to find that I "believe" in much the same as you do. (besides me being a racist and homophobe sexist.. I'm sure you're far above that.)

I do expect a response to all my posts. One of these days one of you fruits will have a response worthy of shutting me and my REASON and LOGIC up. But for now you've lost on all fronts.

>>If? Well, he's sexist, homophobic and everything else by his own posts.<<

None of the above. I understand you guys have run out of any rebuttals so you have to resort to blacklash strategy number 3.a HE'S A RACIST and HOMOPHOBE! You guys are laughable and I truly never thought I'd add the now bitterly rejected WB to that list. Up until now he has been the most reasonable lefty around.