Respecting the Presidential Office

[Apodidae]

I was looking through the thread about the game where you kick George Bush out of the White House and wanted to comment relating to the political part of it, but a moderator was quick to clamp down on that kind of off topic talk (good thing IMO).

I noticed one person was pretty insulted by the game, and I was just wondering what others thought about the office of the president and how we should respect it. Obviously this is a topic that's going to be heavily charged around Bush. I'm ambivalent toward the guy, honestly. He is obviously not good at keeping public opinion on his side, but I also think much of the discontent aimed at him is undeserved. Really, I'm more happy to see Cheney get the hell out. And if Iraq turns into a functioning representative democracy, that's one hell of an accomplishment on the part of the United States and a few other committed countries (not that funding such projects should be the job of the respective taxpayers). Also, despite all the people that ridiculously compare Bush to Hitler, the expansion of presidential power is nothing unique to Bush, and it may be arguable that things have been worse in the past as far as balance-of-powers goes.

My opinions aside, I'm curious how you all feel about a game that involves disrespect toward the president, be it Bush or someone else. Obviously this goes much further. If a game insulting the president offends you, then what about news articles, speeches, internet sites? Other remarks from politicians or officials? So on and so forth. Is there a line to be drawn? Threatening to bring harm or death to the president has been prohibited, but is there something before such an extreme expression that should be made illegal as well?

[Saxon]

Respect for the presidential office died way before Bush ever got in. I think compared to the times of great presidents like FDR, Eisenhower, etc. nobody would have dared to drag their names through the mud like we've been doing to Bush today. Where would I put the blame? Nixon with Watergate. His fall, I think, largely humanized the office of the president and showed that even a leader that is supposed to be the face of our country can make mistakes.

Because of that, I think the public, the press, and the presidents themselves to be given such a prestige position have belittled it to the point where the presidency is no longer a position of leadership but the head of a very long and power chain of bueracrats. Hell, George Washington wouldn't shake hands with people as president because he believed it'd strengthen the image of the president as a leader.

I'll agree that Bush isn't as bad as the lines people are drawing to Hitler and such things, but I think his screw ups with the way he handled post-9/11, No Child Left Behind, and our entry into Iraq pretty much threw a lot of his credibility out the window. I might be able to forgive the guy for being a poor public speaker and not being able to play the game of spin very well, but his executive decisions have both embarassed and tripped our country up.

As for turning Iraq into a representative democracy... What the fuck? I have no desire nor ambition to support a move for the U.S. to do such a horrendous thing. We're not in the Middle East to spread democracy and make little Americas to help make more friends than enemies. We're here to hunt terrorist cells and fix our screw-up with toppling Iraq by helping rebuild their infrastructure and supporting them until they can stand on their own two feet. That's it. The U.S. has no place playing the game of country-maker, especially in an environment that is completely alien and opposite to the ways we do things back home.

In my opinion, I think turning Iraq into a democracy after all the shit we've done would be perverting it, and would probably strengthen the resolve of both the populations living there that don't want to have anything to do with us, but the terrorist cells like Al Qaeda themselves. That in itself, will never have my support as an American, and I think things are far more complicated than what some people are inferring to.

[Apodidae]

Respect for the presidential office died way before Bush ever got in. I think compared to the times of great presidents like FDR, Eisenhower, etc. nobody would have dared to drag their names through the mud like we've been doing to Bush today. Where would I put the blame? Nixon with Watergate. His fall, I think, largely humanized the office of the president and showed that even a leader that is supposed to be the face of our country can make mistakes.

Because of that, I think the public, the press, and the presidents themselves to be given such a prestige position have belittled it to the point where the presidency is no longer a position of leadership but the head of a very long and power chain of bueracrats. Hell, George Washington wouldn't shake hands with people as president because he believed it'd strengthen the image of the president as a leader.

I'll agree that Bush isn't as bad as the lines people are drawing to Hitler and such things, but I think his screw ups with the way he handled post-9/11, No Child Left Behind, and our entry into Iraq pretty much threw a lot of his credibility out the window. I might be able to forgive the guy for being a poor public speaker and not being able to play the game of spin very well, but his executive decisions have both embarassed and tripped our country up.

True, the office of the president may not be what it once was. The power of the executive has grown and grown, particularly since the New Deal and the end of WWII with the National Security Act in '47. But the foul-ups like Watergate, Iran-Contra, and now mismanagement of the Iraq war have seriously undermined public faith in the office. Hopefully Barack will prove a competent leader, since it seems like we need one to help stabilize our relations abroad and our debt that's climbing to $11 trillion (besides about $50 trillion in "exposures"). I think this all gets to a point I wanted to make in my first post: that IMO respect shouldn't simply be placed upon a position or job without consideration of the individual that occupies it. Respect the man, not the rank; I know it is very different in the military, but that sort of hierarchical structure is not good for an open democratic society.


As for turning Iraq into a representative democracy... What the fuck? I have no desire nor ambition to support a move for the U.S. to do such a horrendous thing. We're not in the Middle East to spread democracy and make little Americas to help make more friends than enemies. We're here to hunt terrorist cells and fix our screw-up with toppling Iraq by helping rebuild their infrastructure and supporting them until they can stand on their own two feet. That's it. The U.S. has no place playing the game of country-maker, especially in an environment that is completely alien and opposite to the ways we do things back home.

In my opinion, I think turning Iraq into a democracy after all the shit we've done would be perverting it, and would probably strengthen the resolve of both the populations living there that don't want to have anything to do with us, but the terrorist cells like Al Qaeda themselves. That in itself, will never have my support as an American, and I think things are far more complicated than what some people are inferring to.

Iraq is already on its way to being a representative democracy, though. It has a parliament, political parties, elections, and a semi-accountable government with its prime minister and several presidents. Certainly not a mini-US democratic system. The United States is not just building roads and bridges; we've already helped establish a fledgling democracy, one that has already asserted a degree of independence, i.e. the negotiations on troop withdrawals. I agree with you that toppling other countries and rebuilding them is not the job of the United States. But you make it sound as though democratizing Iraq would be a wholly new mission, when it has been an ongoing project.

That is why I mentioned it; I don't know if the ultimate goal was simply to create a stable government (i.e. a new strongman) or if it was to create a democracy, but either way, the United States entered Iraq with the mission of regime-change. Toppling Saddam wasn't a "screw-up," it was the intention, with plans for creating a new stable government afterward. The first part, getting rid of the old regime, was done superbly. The latter aspect, not so much. The point of my earlier statement was simply that, if we are successful in creating a stable and relatively open government out of the ashes of Saddam's Iraq, well, that's not half bad in light of history.

The whole situation of Iraq and the role of neo-conservatives from the defunct PNAC may provide a clue that democratizing Iraq was in fact an early intention, but who knows? I'm sort of derailing my own thread here, but I don't mind if this just expands into a political discussion rather than strictly about the president's office.

[Saxon]

Toppling Saddam wasn't a "screw-up," it was the intention, with plans for creating a new stable government afterward. The first part, getting rid of the old regime, was done superbly. The latter aspect, not so much. The point of my earlier statement was simply that, if we are successful in creating a stable and relatively open government out of the ashes of Saddam's Iraq, well, that's not half bad in light of history.


I disagree. I really think there hasn't been one thing we can point to from toppling Iraq that could be considered a redeeming accomplishment. Sure, we've removed Saddam from his seat of power and gave him to the Iraqi's to hang, but at what cost? Before we moved into Iraq, we had Al Qaeda on the run and we were narrowing our search in Afghanistan for Osama Bin Laden, which some officials believe we were very close to finding him before we pulled out. Now, we've created more problems by overthrowing a government that may have been terrible but at the time was holding things in place, and was certainly no ally to Al Qaeda or other terrorists cells. We've got populations of people migrating throughout the country from places all over the Middle East, the suspicion that Iran will try and absorb Iraq the moment we try to leave, and a new, more powerful Al Qaeda that we've very little hope of crushing as long as we remain in Iraq and try and go through with this democracy plan.

Our greatest weapon against terrorists nowadays is our ability as a country to raise the standard of living in other countries through rebuilding infrastructure and opening trade with them. Perhaps I'm not putting it very well, but if we were to help Iraq get back onto it's own feet and help it develop, there'd be less recruits for terrorists to pick up. Why? People won't fight and die in a holy war if they have no reason to. Most of the reasons underlying terrorists becoming terrorists have to do with our presence in the Middle East and poverty. Al Qaeda's propaganda and messages of terror only have strength if the people listening to it are weak and desperate in the first place.

So, really, I'd say that in order to redeem ourselves for squandering an opportunity to kill a monster we've created is by helping to rebuild Iraq, try to train and prepare them to become less dependent on us, and leave without the intention of treating the country as a puppet state. We don't need Iraq or other countries in the Middle East in our pocket, a lot of the people in these countries hate terrorists as much as we do, but they dislike our meddling even more.

[Apodidae]

This is sliding into a discussion of whether one supports the goals and consequences of the Iraq war, which is much different than simply identifying them. I have mixed feelings toward the whole affair; obviously good and bad has arisen from our invasion and occupation of the country. I just want to note a few assumptions that you seem to have wrong, though.


Now, we've created more problems by overthrowing a government that may have been terrible but at the time was holding things in place, and was certainly no ally to Al Qaeda or other terrorists cells.

This is not a given. Saddam’s regime was rather destabilizing; the war with Iran, the meddling in the Palestinian territories, and the invasion of Kuwait (not that our invasion wasn’t extremely destabilizing). He also reportedly had ties to terrorist groups; perhaps not al Qaida directly, but similar groups nonetheless: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/mar/25/saddam-tied-to-terrorists/, and the report which that article is about, http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html. The report is from the Institute for Defense Analyses, affiliated in part with the federal government and Department of Defense. However, it still provides evidence, and must be taken into account rather than shrugged off as propaganda.


We've got populations of people migrating throughout the country from places all over the Middle East, the suspicion that Iran will try and absorb Iraq the moment we try to leave, and a new, more powerful Al Qaeda that we've very little hope of crushing as long as we remain in Iraq and try and go through with this democracy plan.

The refugee situation is an enormous problem, I agree, and the potential leverage of Iran in Iraq is also dangerous. However, I haven’t seen much evidence indicating that al Qaida is “new” or “more powerful” since the invasion of Iraq. And while our focus on Iraq may be a distraction in our pursuit of al Qaida and other insurgents on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the discussion about withdrawal is moot following the Status of Forces Agreement.


Our greatest weapon against terrorists nowadays is our ability as a country to raise the standard of living in other countries through rebuilding infrastructure and opening trade with them. Perhaps I'm not putting it very well, but if we were to help Iraq get back onto it's own feet and help it develop, there'd be less recruits for terrorists to pick up. Why? People won't fight and die in a holy war if they have no reason to. Most of the reasons underlying terrorists becoming terrorists have to do with our presence in the Middle East and poverty. Al Qaeda's propaganda and messages of terror only have strength if the people listening to it are weak and desperate in the first place.

I agree with you here, though I feel I should mention that the link between poverty and terrorism is a difficult one. Many terrorists, it is said, are actually well educated and not poor: http://www.usini.org/content_files/PovertyandTerrorismPaperfinal.doc, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=487467. However, the existence of poverty gives them propaganda and support; and so does foreign meddling, like that of the United States, which you mentioned. So while the identity of terrorists and violent extremists may not be poor, the existence of poverty seems to play a role in their gaining power. That said, I agree that our efforts would be better spent at strengthening economies and raising standards of living.


So, really, I'd say that in order to redeem ourselves for squandering an opportunity to kill a monster we've created is by helping to rebuild Iraq, try to train and prepare them to become less dependent on us, and leave without the intention of treating the country as a puppet state. We don't need Iraq or other countries in the Middle East in our pocket, a lot of the people in these countries hate terrorists as much as we do, but they dislike our meddling even more.

If the monster you’re referring to is Osama (not sure if you are), then I should point out that I haven’t been able to find any evidence whatsoever that we created him or even worked with him against the Soviets. Anyway, as for what you said about redemption, we are doing all of the above, from what I can tell; we have tried to help rebuild, we are training their forces, and the new government doesn’t appear to be a puppet state. Part of the rebuilding and independence processes was the holding of elections and the creation of a parliamentary system.


When it comes to Iraq, it has been one foul up after another. And as much as I'd like to think that dethroning Saddam and a lot of the Bath party would have been a good thing, we've only made things worse. A lot of what Al Qaeda does now, in the ways of getting recruits and continuing their operations to wreak havoc has increased exponentially with our entry into Iraq. A lot of the populations we've been trying to aid and help shepherd into a new democratic regime have turned around and either started cooperating with terrorists or have become one. Honestly, I may not condone why a terrorist does what he does, but I'm beginning understand the reasons behind it.

I’m not sure where any of this comes from. I can understand why you would think the Iraq war has made things worse than before, but it is impossible to say how the war in Afghanistan or against al Qaida would have progressed even if we did not invade Iraq. I read one source that said the Taliban effectively evacuated the country upon the invasion and that it was regrouping in Pakistan in the past few years, and its apparent strength now is only due to its previous dormancy. Who knows though. More troops would suggest more success in the area, but not necessarily due to the hairy situation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and alleged complicity. Things may not be much better than they are now, and I doubt that they would be very peachy under any circumstances.

That all said, I am in general agreement with you. The Iraq war can easily be characterized as a mistake, and its consequences for nearly everyone involved have been unfortunate. It has happened though, and the United States is doing what it can to fix it; in a few years our forces there will be mostly gone and likely in Afghanistan. It’s time to focus on Pakistan, and most urgently, to avert conflict between them and India.

[Saxon]

If the monster you’re referring to is Osama (not sure if you are), then I should point out that I haven’t been able to find any evidence whatsoever that we created him or even worked with him against the Soviets.


..We did work with him in the 80s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it is well documented (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/155236.stm). He was one of the rebel fighters in Afghanistan at the time that the CIA helped train and provide weapons in order to take down the Soviets during their invasion into the Afghanistan borders. We're largely responsible for Osama having the military knowledge that he does, and even more so when it comes to what happened at the end of the war in Afghanistan when the entire country was leveled and we left without helping them rebuild and put the majority of the citizens in the hands of self-proclaimed holy warriors like Osama. I was also mentioning Saddam and the Bath Party, because our government had a big hand in setting Iraq up the way it was in the first place.

It seems more and more like our country's own worst enemies have been created by us out of mistakes we've made or seedy attempts to keep people who don't have our best interests at heart out of power. And now, with Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells in the works, it's coming back to bite us in the ass.


I’m not sure where any of this comes from. I can understand why you would think the Iraq war has made things worse than before, but it is impossible to say how the war in Afghanistan or against al Qaida would have progressed even if we did not invade Iraq. I read one source that said the Taliban effectively evacuated the country upon the invasion and that it was regrouping in Pakistan in the past few years, and its apparent strength now is only due to its previous dormancy. Who knows though. More troops would suggest more success in the area, but not necessarily due to the hairy situation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and alleged complicity. Things may not be much better than they are now, and I doubt that they would be very peachy under any circumstances.

That was scrap from my post that I had forgotten to delete when I posted. Most of what I needed to say with it was tailored throughout the rest of my post.



However, I haven’t seen much evidence indicating that al Qaida is “new” or “more powerful” since the invasion of Iraq.



Al Qaeda has become more powerful since our withdraw from Afghanistan and has spread throughout more of the world than it would have if we would have just stayed put in the country and not tried to meddle with Iraq. Then again, you could be right in that we have no way of knowing how far these terrorists and Osama had their reach prior and post 9/11. But, nontheless, it's become more widespread and harder to pin down, and there have been arguments made that even if we were to capture Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, it wouldn't stop the group of Al Qaeda itself. Not any more, at least.

[Apodidae]

..We did work with him in the 80s against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and it is well documented (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/155236.stm). He was one of the rebel fighters in Afghanistan at the time that the CIA helped train and provide weapons in order to take down the Soviets during their invasion into the Afghanistan borders. We're largely responsible for Osama having the military knowledge that he does, and even more so when it comes to what happened at the end of the war in Afghanistan when the entire country was leveled and we left without helping them rebuild and put the majority of the citizens in the hands of self-proclaimed holy warriors like Osama. I was also mentioning Saddam and the Bath Party, because our government had a big hand in setting Iraq up the way it was in the first place.

It seems more and more like our country's own worst enemies have been created by us out of mistakes we've made or seedy attempts to keep people who don't have our best interests at heart out of power. And now, with Al Qaeda and other terrorist cells in the works, it's coming back to bite us in the ass.

I don't think "well documented" is accurate. The article only provides the opinion of one analyst to support the idea that the CIA and bin Laden had a relationship. And I heard of a British official saying something similar...but really, most evidence points the other way.

The United States did provide a lot of funds, and I believe some training and expertise, but most of that assistance to the mujahideen was funneled through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in Operation Cyclone. The program was aimed at training and arming the native resistance forces, the Afghan mujahideen, in their fight against the Soviets. The foreign mujahideen, largely helped into Afghanistan and trained by MAK, played a very limited role and did not really coordinate with the native forces. Plus, most of the foreign fighters were not present until later in the fight, after the Soviet Union was contemplating withdrawal. http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue1/jv6n1a1.html The CIA did come across the foreign mujahideen, but it is unlikely that they had any relationship with them as did the ISI.

No doubt, the United States helped create a large mess over there. We did offer funds to be matched by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and allegedly gave a lot of freedom to the ISI in how it would distribute that money. That was a big mistake, firstly. Secondly, we helped radicalize the area with that money (and I believe we helped print 'extremist' school books) and following the withdrawal, we became wrapped up in Kuwait and forgot about the situation. I don't think we cared much about the Taliban gaining power (perhaps even assisted them, though I can't find anything to support that) since they provided relative stability in which a pipeline from the Caspian sea through Turkmenistan could be built, bypassing Russia and Iran. Also, our earlier support of Saddam and during the war with Iran also bit us in the ass.


Al Qaeda has become more powerful since our withdraw from Afghanistan and has spread throughout more of the world than it would have if we would have just stayed put in the country and not tried to meddle with Iraq. Then again, you could be right in that we have no way of knowing how far these terrorists and Osama had their reach prior and post 9/11. But, nontheless, it's become more widespread and harder to pin down, and there have been arguments made that even if we were to capture Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, it wouldn't stop the group of Al Qaeda itself. Not any more, at least.

I've heard different conclusions. Some say that the reach of the original al Qaida is diminished, but that similar groups (though not officially connected) are rising elsewhere.

[Mavek]

Whatever the case is, I'll have to admit that I'm a bit put off. Bush is a dead horse that people keep beating because whenever somebody somewhere needs something to complain about or blame their problems on, he's the easiest target to go to. Fine.

My issue is when idolization without justification occurs. Anyone that brands Bush as "a hero" has a right to do that, whether they're absurdly wrong or not - he's done something and, as such, has justification for whatever title anyone wants to give him (i.e. 'Hitler' as some people like, no matter how base and ludicrous that comparison is). However, I've seen a lot of comparisons on television of President-Elect Obama to figures such as Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. I'm curious. Why? Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were great leaders (although, comparatively, JFK made some mistakes that are more comparable to Bush than some would like to admit). Obama is... not a leader yet. He hasn't done anything. On what basis can you compare him with some of the greatest leaders of our nation if there is nothing to compare it with?

As has been said in this thread already, "respect the man, not the office". Honestly, I say to respect both, but individually. And I'm confused about what's going on in our country right now.

[Tainted Bushido]

However, I've seen a lot of comparisons on television of President-Elect Obama to figures such as Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. I'm curious. Why? Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were great leaders (although, comparatively, JFK made some mistakes that are more comparable to Bush than some would like to admit). Obama is... not a leader yet. He hasn't done anything. On what basis can you compare him with some of the greatest leaders of our nation if there is nothing to compare it with?



Three words: Cult of Personality.

[Terminus Mortis]

I can point out one very major accomplishment with bringing Saddam Hussein out of power.

One of the central tenets of Jihadism focuses around the idea of a pure Islamic state from with the Jihad will be unleashed. Saddam Hussein was seen in the eyes of Al Quida as a friend and ally who had established a government run by "true Muslim believers" where they could find sanction and eventually begin to fight all non-believers, including America and Israel as well as all other Muslims who did not properly submit to the Shari'a (The books detailing the life of Muhammad) and did not join the fight against the infidels. By taking Saddam Hussein out of power and also forcing the Taliban out of Afghanistan we have destroyed the only pure Islamic states which Al Quida believed existed in the world.

If you study both Jihadi extremism's short and long term goals you will understand why we are actually winning the war on terror. We did not react at all as the Jihadis predicted. By not pulling out of Iraq immediately after we began sustaining losses, by blaming only certain individuals and organizations for 9-11 instead of all the Muslim community, and by forcing extremists out of government power we have upset the balance in a manner which places us far above the extremists.

[Caden Law]

One of the central tenets of Jihadism focuses around the idea of a pure Islamic state from with the Jihad will be unleashed. Saddam Hussein was seen in the eyes of Al Quida as a friend and ally who had established a government run by "true Muslim believers" where they could find sanction and eventually begin to fight all non-believers, including America and Israel as well as all other Muslims who did not properly submit to the Shari'a (The books detailing the life of Muhammad) and did not join the fight against the infidels. By taking Saddam Hussein out of power and also forcing the Taliban out of Afghanistan we have destroyed the only pure Islamic states which Al Quida believed existed in the world.While I can agree with the paragraphs before and after this, more or less, you're just plain wrong here. There have been little or no conclusive links found between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda (sic). Seven years of looking, of squinting, of scrutinizing every little detail down to the last nanofiber has only turned up circumstantial evidence at best.

Bush took out Saddam for oil, and if that wasn't his driving motivation then personal vendetta and misguided idealism were. Take your pick as to which is worse. I honestly think he believed that good would come of it -- and maybe someday, it will -- but that was not his primary motive.

[Mavek]

Bush took out Saddam for oil...

Oh, so that's why oil has been so inexpensive in America since the Iraqi Conflict started.

Please, do as you told the man you quoted in your previous statement and make intellectually-founded statements, not baseless opinions. Facts - not opinions that are both unfounded by any sort of evidence. Come on, now. Was the phrase "Practice what you preach" thrown out the window along with half the other religious mentioning in the U.S. Government?

[Terminus Mortis]

Though we may not find any conclusive dealings between the Hussein regime and Al Queida, the idea of a single Shari'a enforcing political party which controls the Islamic state (In this case, the Ba'ath) is centric to the idea of creating a pure nation of Islam.

And Mavek's right, if they were after oil would it have shot up to $4 a gallon? It's a generally nonsensical notion that we would invade Iraq for oil when such an invasion only serves to disrupt petroleum sales in the region and upset the UAE. Besides, what personal motivation and misguided idealism are you looking at? Saddam would have men and women kidnapped off the streets to be raped and tortured for no reason. I can't consider removing someone of that nature from a position of political power 'misguided idealism'. It's not like the UN was going to step up and say no. They make their peacekeeping forces in Africa stand down while people are slaughtered right in front of them.

[Caden Law]

Oh, so that's why oil has been so inexpensive in America since the Iraqi Conflict started.

Please, do as you told the man you quoted in your previous statement and make intellectually-founded statements, not baseless opinions. Facts - not opinions that are both unfounded by any sort of evidence. Come on, now. Was the phrase "Practice what you preach" thrown out the window along with half the other religious mentioning in the U.S. Government?I said that was his reason, not that it was a success. Chill pill, buddy. :p And if you're really that hard-up for facts, go digging for the economic fallout from Iraq. Companies tied to the Bush Administration got no-bid contracts for something like two years straight, including Cheney's former company of Haliburton. Look it up.


Though we may not find any conclusive dealings between the Hussein regime and Al Queida, the idea of a single Shari'a enforcing political party which controls the Islamic state (In this case, the Ba'ath) is centric to the idea of creating a pure nation of Islam.Except for the part where Saddam, despotic and sadistic as he was, was closer to being a secular leader. He only went for Shari'a or Islam-o-baiting when it was convenient, and most of the Middle-Eastern powers -- including Iran, which has a much more valid claim to being an Islamic state then Iraq ever has -- hated him for it. Even from an ideological standpoint, Bin Laden's thugs and Saddam's thugs did not get along. The only thing they had in common was enmity with the US, and even that had different motives for each of them.


And Mavek's right, if they were after oil would it have shot up to $4 a gallon? It's a generally nonsensical notion that we would invade Iraq for oil when such an invasion only serves to disrupt petroleum sales in the region and upset the UAE. Besides, what personal motivation and misguided idealism are you looking at? Saddam would have men and women kidnapped off the streets to be raped and tortured for no reason. I can't consider removing someone of that nature from a position of political power 'misguided idealism'. It's not like the UN was going to step up and say no. They make their peacekeeping forces in Africa stand down while people are slaughtered right in front of them.
Again: Just because it was his reason does not mean he succeeded at it. Misguided idealism can be gleamed from interviews with both Dick Cheney and George Bush, who seriously thought that it would be smooth sailing and they would be greeted as liberators because Saddam was an evil son of a bitch. Chalk it up to both men being neoconservatives, a political thought/philosophy group that isn't exactly known for clear and sane thinking when it comes to foreign policy.

Incidentally, the UN's military impotence is more of an excuse than a motivation. And I agree with you that Saddam needed to be taken out, and that his downfall was a good thing. I just disagree with the notion that Bush took him down for humanitarian reasons. He's hardly ever framed it in that light, and it only became a talking point for his administration after it was clear that the WMD scare was either a monumental cock-up or a flat-out lie, neither of which is much of a comfort to me.

[Mavek]

No, thanks on the chill pill - I'm a bit tired of the inanity of such a notion that a single man would be as big of an idiot as to send an entire nation to war under the persuasion that he would gain personal financial profit from it and that no one would have clear, outstanding evidence (especially in a country where the media is so corrupt, scathing, and hateful towards anyone who holds any position of power) that would incriminate him and have him impeached immediately.

Secondly - if those "facts" of yours held any water, there would still be some sort of substance to them; undeniable proof that those companies were bought out by Bush/Cheney owned oil companies. Like, say, lowered gas prices. Stop being a conspiracy theorists like the other umpteen million Americans who do nothing but watch CNN and go "Oh, God - reporters speak the gospel!". Come on. Logic. Reasoning. Greece didn't become one of the greatest empires in the history of the world because they had neat togas.

[Caden Law]

No, thanks on the chill pill - I'm a bit tired of the inanity of such a notion that a single man would be as big of an idiot as to send an entire nation to war under the persuasion that he would gain personal financial profit from it and that no one would have clear, outstanding evidence (especially in a country where the media is so corrupt, scathing, and hateful towards anyone who holds any position of power) that would incriminate him and have him impeached immediately.You put way too much faith in the powers that be then. Read up on history. Plenty of leaders have done the same, and to think America's leaders are different is a sad error in judgement. There've been plenty of administration turncoats over the years who've stopped towing the party line and admitted that they either cooked the books willingly or were forced to by higher-ups. Incidentally, you have to consider all the factors going in his favor at the time: Constant terror alerts that, in hindsight, were perfectly timed to supplant dissent in the media, Fox News basically bullying everyone else under the guise of fair and balanced reporting, a general state of fear and anger left over by 9/11, and the misguided belief that our liberation of Iraq would buy us enough good will to do whatever we wanted without any kind of solid exit strategy.

For a media that's supposed to hate and revile anyone in power, they went awfully easy on Bush right up until...probably around Katrina, give or take a couple months. They've been making up for lost time ever since.

That Bush hasn't been, and probably never will be impeached owes itself to the political insanities of our current congress. They voted for the war, by and large, and if they impeach him then they are admitting that they were wrong -- and that's at a minimum. The current Justice Department likely won't indict him or his administration for any reason because the majority of judges -- as pointed out by Bush himself in one of his farewell speeches -- were put in office by him, to say nothing of the fact that the Department in general is currently being run into the dirt by neocons and their ilk; all people who agree with his purported motives and ideologies.


Secondly - if those "facts" of yours held any water, there would still be some sort of substance to them; undeniable proof that those companies were bought out by Bush/Cheney owned oil companies. Like, say, lowered gas prices. Stop being a conspiracy theorists like the other umpteen million Americans who do nothing but watch CNN and go "Oh, God - reporters speak the gospel!". Come on. Logic. Reasoning. Greece didn't become one of the greatest empires in the history of the world because they had neat togas.I repeat, and in bold all caps just to get the message through this time: JUST BECAUSE IT WAS HIS MOTIVATION DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS A SUCCESS.

Incidentally, your own logic contradicts itself: You expect clear, irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing and yet you assume clear, irrefutable evidence that they were justified in going for WMDs -- even though six years of looking has turned up nothing but a couple of old gas canisters in the desert. Logic dictates that somewhere up and down the line, somebody either got it wrong or somebody outright lied. We know the CIA had plenty of people who said there were no WMDs or that the possibility of WMDs was uncertain at best. We know Cheney worked for Haliburton, we know Haliburton was on the ground floor for no-bid contracts -- whether they blew it or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Before and after lead smack dab to the middle: Somebody cooked the books, and the only ones with the authority to do that were the President, VP, and their inner circle/s. I know you discount the media, but there've been plenty of White House turncoats over the years who've pointed to Bush and/or Cheney ordering the CIA to build the case for war with Iraq. Ignore one, that's easy. Ignore all of them and the circumstantial evidence supporting them and then you're the one forging conspiracies in the dark.

If you reach that point, then you can return to the original point: Misguided idealism or pure greed. Pick one. Hope you don't get both. Unfortunately, in my point of view, we got both. I generally view Cheney as being motivated more by greed and Bush by misguided idealism. Both had a good helping of the other; Bush probably rationalized his greed with idealism (We'll free them and get oil!) and Cheney probably rationalized his idealism with greed (We'll get oil and free them!). Just because that was their motive doesn't mean it worked.

That all out the way, I'm going to repeat: Chill pill. Take one. Don't make me repeat myself. I'm fine for civil debate but once we start going round in circles and chucking insults, it's all downhill from there.

[Terminus Mortis]

And "A couple of old gas cans in the desert" seems like on hell of a way to belittle the deaths of roughly 100,000 Kurdish muslims to Sarin and mustard gas.

Also, in 1991 botulinum toxin and anthrax were loaded into SCUD missiles and deployed to four separate regions during the Gulf War. Thank God he never used them.

Also, US soldiers found factories underneath Baghdad which were supposedly labeled for the production of crop-dusting insect toxins, but contained all the equipment necessary for producing chemical and biological agents.

[Caden Law]

And "A couple of old gas cans in the desert" seems like on hell of a way to belittle the deaths of roughly 100,000 Kurdish muslims to Sarin and mustard gas.

Also, in 1991 botulinum toxin and anthrax were loaded into SCUD missiles and deployed to four separate regions during the Gulf War. Thank God he never used them.

Also, US soldiers found factories underneath Baghdad which were supposedly labeled for the production of crop-dusting insect toxins, but contained all the equipment necessary for producing chemical and biological agents.All of which would've been a fine and dandy reason for Bush Sr. or Clinton to take him out. With respect to them, both of them botched it too. By the time Bush Jr. rolled into office, whatever WMDs Saddam had were either used up or destroyed because he actually did fear international reprisal. You don't hold on to a dictatorship by being suicidal.

[Terminus Mortis]

Yet history has shown that very few do manage to hold on to their dictatorships at all. And you know what? His head popped off when they hung him.

[Tainted Bushido]

Come on. Logic. Reasoning. Greece didn't become one of the greatest empires in the history of the world because they had neat togas.

They didn't?

Oh darn, and here I was thinking I could just bring back the Toga and fix the economy....

[Caden Law]

Yet history has shown that very few do manage to hold on to their dictatorships at all. And you know what? His head popped off when they hung him.
...which does nothing to diminish from my point. Concession accepted, my friend. :)

[Mavek]

You put way too much faith in the powers that be then. Read up on history. Plenty of leaders have done the same, and to think America's leaders are different is a sad error in judgement. There've been plenty of administration turncoats over the years who've stopped towing the party line and admitted that they either cooked the books willingly or were forced to by higher-ups. Incidentally, you have to consider all the factors going in his favor at the time: Constant terror alerts that, in hindsight, were perfectly timed to supplant dissent in the media, Fox News basically bullying everyone else under the guise of fair and balanced reporting, a general state of fear and anger left over by 9/11, and the misguided belief that our liberation of Iraq would buy us enough good will to do whatever we wanted without any kind of solid exit strategy.

For a media that's supposed to hate and revile anyone in power, they went awfully easy on Bush right up until...probably around Katrina, give or take a couple months. They've been making up for lost time ever since.

That Bush hasn't been, and probably never will be impeached owes itself to the political insanities of our current congress. They voted for the war, by and large, and if they impeach him then they are admitting that they were wrong -- and that's at a minimum. The current Justice Department likely won't indict him or his administration for any reason because the majority of judges -- as pointed out by Bush himself in one of his farewell speeches -- were put in office by him, to say nothing of the fact that the Department in general is currently being run into the dirt by neocons and their ilk; all people who agree with his purported motives and ideologies.

I repeat, and in bold all caps just to get the message through this time: JUST BECAUSE IT WAS HIS MOTIVATION DOES NOT MEAN IT WAS A SUCCESS.

Incidentally, your own logic contradicts itself: You expect clear, irrefutable evidence of wrongdoing and yet you assume clear, irrefutable evidence that they were justified in going for WMDs -- even though six years of looking has turned up nothing but a couple of old gas canisters in the desert. Logic dictates that somewhere up and down the line, somebody either got it wrong or somebody outright lied. We know the CIA had plenty of people who said there were no WMDs or that the possibility of WMDs was uncertain at best. We know Cheney worked for Haliburton, we know Haliburton was on the ground floor for no-bid contracts -- whether they blew it or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Before and after lead smack dab to the middle: Somebody cooked the books, and the only ones with the authority to do that were the President, VP, and their inner circle/s. I know you discount the media, but there've been plenty of White House turncoats over the years who've pointed to Bush and/or Cheney ordering the CIA to build the case for war with Iraq. Ignore one, that's easy. Ignore all of them and the circumstantial evidence supporting them and then you're the one forging conspiracies in the dark.

If you reach that point, then you can return to the original point: Misguided idealism or pure greed. Pick one. Hope you don't get both. Unfortunately, in my point of view, we got both. I generally view Cheney as being motivated more by greed and Bush by misguided idealism. Both had a good helping of the other; Bush probably rationalized his greed with idealism (We'll free them and get oil!) and Cheney probably rationalized his idealism with greed (We'll get oil and free them!). Just because that was their motive doesn't mean it worked.

That all out the way, I'm going to repeat: Chill pill. Take one. Don't make me repeat myself. I'm fine for civil debate but once we start going round in circles and chucking insults, it's all downhill from there.

And I, sir, shall also repeat myself: no. Not no, but hell no. Your entire arguement (and admittedly, mine also) are based wholly on a combination of opinion and biased media. Which means neither of us can be, or will be, "right" until there is some sort of definative, concrete evidence verifying either side - and there isn't, because if there was, it would have been put into use correcting whatever situation that evidence would have verified. And secondly - don't patronize me. Lead by example and swallow your own pill, first.

Oh, and for the record, my logic didn't run into a circle because I didn't say a thing about WMDs. The only thing I ever said was that Bush and his administration didn't do what they did for oil. Sure, they could have made the attempt. Sure, it may not have succeeded, even though it was their intention. But all that is speculation. All of it. You can't make brazen statements that aren't facts - only hypothesis - and expect others to just accept it as if it's gospel truth. And you can't start and arguement and, once someone debates the subject, tell them to "chill". Your forsook that ability when you started the arguement. That would be like starting a gun fight and as soon as your enemy shoots back saying "Oh, wait, hold up - why you shootin' at me? Can't we just get along?"

Oh, and the congress has been for the past four years majority Democratic.

[Terminus Mortis]

And personally I prefer the gunfight. I do much better in the gunfights.

And that's not a concession. You don't concede to opinions. I base my own opinions off of fact, research, and study. Therefore I find I can support my opinion. What I've pointed out so far has been a compilation of historical fact and perspective studies.

And when more dictators arise and we decide to invade their nations, I'll be sure to be there to watch their heads pop off after I've slipped the noose around their necks. As the boots on the ground, I'll be sure to supply you with factual information as to how people in the country feel about us. So far in Iraq: People still thank us for dealing with Hussein. The number of IEDs and car bombings being reported before they occur has jumped drastically. Mothers and fathers often present gifts to our soldiers and Marines to thank them for helping to make the streets safe for their children to play in. We are training the Iraqi military and police anti-terror teams to deal with the Jihadis themselves. Of course the media won't bother to even look at that until hell freezes over.

See you all in either Iran, China, or North Korea next.

[Arsène]

I think we should all take some kind of pill that inflicts upon the user a feeling of "chill." Heroin is also an excellent downer.

This isn't so much a warning, just a moderator asking everyone to keep in mind what they say on these boards should follow the same rules of etiquette that one would use in a real world conversation. While nothing is explicitly insulting, we could all benefit from stepping away for a minute and taking a look at something before we post it.

[Terminus Mortis]

However, I've seen a lot of comparisons on television of President-Elect Obama to figures such as Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. I'm curious. Why? Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were great leaders (although, comparatively, JFK made some mistakes that are more comparable to Bush than some would like to admit). Obama is... not a leader yet. He hasn't done anything. On what basis can you compare him with some of the greatest leaders of our nation if there is nothing to compare it with?

Oh I see the connection growing very strong in the next few days. All the leaders he is compared to were assassinated! And nobody get all pissed about that comment. Let's face it, I've only ever seen him compared to presidents who died of gunshot wounds.

[Godhand]

Well I guess it's better to die early than to go out a bumblefuck lame duck fool who single-handedly turned the entire country democrat by starting a war because of nothing, for nothing and with the ultimate result of nothing.

[Max Dirks]

Question for you Caden.

Are you going to respect the presidental office tomorrow or wait a bit to see what is done?

[Caden Law]

Question for you Caden.

Are you going to respect the presidental office tomorrow or wait a bit to see what is done?
...meaning?

[Max Dirks]

I'm curious as to whether you're simply anti-Bush (or republican) or anti-policy.

[Mavek]

Well I guess it's better to die early than to go out a bumblefuck lame duck fool who single-handedly turned the entire country democrat by starting a war because of nothing, for nothing and with the ultimate result of nothing.

Because Congress has nothing to with what our country does. The executive office doesn't have half the power everyone's been giving it recently - seriously, most people that insult George give him way too much credit. And the Congress that's been letting the man do all his "vile, evil nonsense" has been Democratic for most of the time he's been America's donkey on which to pin the tail.

[Godhand]

I can't believe this shit. Is your argument seriously "the people in congress are just as bad as Bush, so there"?

[Caden Law]

I'm curious as to whether you're simply anti-Bush (or republican) or anti-policy.
I'm not really anti-Bush so much as I refuse to look at him through rosy glasses. I gave him the benefit of the doubt far longer than most people I know, conservatives included, and even then I try to give him a small shred of the benefit of the doubt. I give him his credit where it's due. Unfortunately, most of the credit his supporters attempt to heave on him is not due.

Politically speaking, I'm an independent. I voted Obama because I disliked Palin and I was going to be happy either way, even if McCain did have to basically sell his soul to get his party's nomination.

[Caden Law]

Because Congress has nothing to with what our country does. The executive office doesn't have half the power everyone's been giving it recently - seriously, most people that insult George give him way too much credit. And the Congress that's been letting the man do all his "vile, evil nonsense" has been Democratic for most of the time he's been America's donkey on which to pin the tail.
Incidentally, this is wrong. The Democrats only took majorities in 2006. Even then, most of the ones in office were afraid of blowback from voting for the war. I think I pointed that out in a previous post, but meh.

EDIT: And just to head off the inevitable accusations of lying, eat wikipedia: Starting with the 107th Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/107th_United_States_Congress), which started Democratic and then went Republican, over to the Republican 108th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/108th_United_States_Congress), Republican 109th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress), and finally Democratic 110th (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress), which officially kicked off in 2007.

[lPulse]

Well I guess it's better to die early than to go out a bumblefuck lame duck fool who single-handedly turned the entire country democrat by starting a war because of nothing, for nothing and with the ultimate result of nothing.

Your heart is so hard Godhand!
Ask our veterans of the war about it and see if they say what you did.

A discussion with some of the front-line professionals, intel gatherers, footsoldiers etc will clearly not change your mind. It seems to me you go out of your way merely to spew hatred and insult.

Many world leaders do horrible things and I still do not speak of them the way you spoke of President Bush. It`s your prerogative to be an ass when you see fit but it`s still wrong. I don`t even talk about Hitler like that.

Why don`t you ship yourself overseas and walk up to some of our servicemen and women out there and tell them what they`ve been living, suffering, praying, hoping and dying for was all "nothing" and listen to their responses? Why don`t you tell the friends and families of Coalition casualties that? The trip might prevail upon you to obtain something you desperately need: more wisdom.

I suggest you start learning what sacrifice is and how to honor those who make sacrifices for the good of other people. Don`t bother thinking I`m going to care about any insults you gush as a result of this post. -.-

[Serilliant]

I think acupuncture is a waste of time. Should I poll acupuncturists to determine whether my opinion is right?

[Godhand]

Hitler.

DING DING DING! YOU SAID THE MAGIC WORD!

http://www.thepiemaker.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pee-wee-chairy.jpg

God, why is it than in these threads Hitler inevitably pops up?

As for "omg think of the children troops", I don't know what to say. There's no draft; they made their choice. I respect them for having the balls to go out and exchange fire with a bunch of Muslims in the desert, but please don't ask me to believe they're fighting for my freedom. They might believe they are, and more power to them if they enlisted because that's what they thought, but let's get real for a second. The Muslims were never any real threat. They managed to catch us off guard once, once, and they obviously don't have the manpower or the support to do fuckall else.

If this was a revenge war, then it was a failure because all the casualties on our side that could have been avoided simply by bombing them to oblivion. If it was an oil war, then it was a failure because the Iraqi people certainly weren't gracious enough to give us all their oil after we shot their despot. And if was a 'liberation' war, well then...

Good luck with all THAT, I guess.