*DAMN R6 Forum

Okay, I've never taken pains to hide my dislike of Bush in the past, but I've really gotta hand it to the guy this time. He flew into Iraq to visit the troops for thanksgiving, even served some of them dinner.

You can find the story here. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-27-bush-iraq_x.htm)

I know it's going to get him major PR, but this time he deserves it. Going into Iraq took balls.

***golf claps for the president

errr. lol what, took balls?
Not really

this is the dumbest most obvious PR bullshit i have ever seen

It takes balls to go into a country occupied by 100,000 of your own soldiers?

I agree he's great with the PR, even though his polices have destroyed U.S. world relations, opened the door for big business to pollute(Clear Skies, which rolls back the clean air act), shits on basic rights of privacy(Patriot Act), destroyed medicare and engulfed us into a war that cannot be won. Not to mention his less than honest ploy to go to war for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. Also I find it interesting that the vice president is the former CEO of Halliberton which scored a $1.5 billion noncompetitive contract to rebuild what we destroyed. You have to love him if you're one of the top 10% of the economic spectrum, but I unfortunately am not. Perhaps, instead of dishing out turkey dinner he should have made sure that all troops in Iraq were equipped with body armor. I fear for the future well being of this country.  

lol, what the hell.  He flew in unannounced, soldiers were standing around not knowing why and the plane had all of it's lights off, not to mention he flew in during the middle of the night.  Then after a short period of time he got the hell out of there.

I still think it took guts to go to Iraq, to spend some time with some troops, who were suprised about his visit.  I think that made those soldier's thanksgiving day even more special.

Blitz 8)

it took big fucking balls, there's still a war going on. helicopters and recently planes have become targets in iraq. he flew in on air-force one, not some undercover jet. and if the president has ever been in your town then you know what kind of security and secrecy always comes with him. i remember somebody here saying how he was a pussy for not going there. now he goes (while there's still a war going on) and still ppl shit on him. lol's how long did it take for churchill and the president to visit berlin after WWII?
was it a publicity stunt?....possibly. did it take big ones?...i think so.
think we'll ever see the day that saddam flies into reagan national airport in washington?....how bout usama flying into j.f.k. in new york? doubt it.

Dear god cutter did you just compare George W. Bush to Winston Churchill? Yeah he has balls and knows how to smile for the cameras, but when it comes to making choices that will effect this country in drastic ways, he's a corporate pawn. This is the most dangerous President within any of our lifetimes. To me there is nothing more alarming than a theocratic corporate pawn, that knows how to work the voting population. This country needs a leader that will work in the best interest of the people and not the best interest of big business. There is no man more of a coward than a man who will gladly send the sons and daughters of others to die for a false cause.

Cutter, I'm pretty damn sure that if Usama had as much control of the US as we do of Iraq, he wouldn't hesitate to fly into J.F.K International Airport.

I'm impressed that Bush did this. However, do I think it was some heroic act? No. Do I think he showed a lot of guts in doing so? No, not really.

No one was aware of his trip there. Not only did his plane look like a normal cargo plane coming into Baghdad, it was blacked out.

If Bush wanted to really show some guts, he'd have announced his trip there. Why didn't he do this? Because he's not a fucking idiot ( some may beg to differ ). There would've been no point other than to make himself a target.

But did Bush show anymore guts than anyone else flying into Baghdad? I don't think so.

Why can't it just be something nice he did for the troops?  Just leave it at that and STFU.  You people are worse than the fucking media that has to "spin" everything to make it into something it isn't!

ak-47...it was in no way a comparison between the two men.

let me make this very clear...in my opinion churchill was THE greatest leader any country could ever hope to have. when it comes to balls at a time of crisis and war NO MAN compares to sir winston churchill. check the military quotes post, all of the quotes i chose to post were churchills. he also happens to be the leader that all leaders (including bush) choose to study in times of crisis.

my churchill reference was a question on how long after the war did he and the president visit berlin. thats all. hardly a comparison.

ok now i see my typo. in my first post i said "churchill the president" i meant to type "churchill and the president"
-fixed

It was a nice gesture. Now all he has to do is attend the funerals of some of the soldiers killed.

Bush visits Baghdad and Gorby visited Kabul. It is a publicity stunt and a good one too. Did he have balls to fly into Baghdad? Apparently he did. Did he have balls to stay more than 2 hours? No. My main point (as I am trying to illustrate under the influence of too much turkey and wine) is that he isnt there fighting with the troops. He does not know the horrors of war and in my eyes he will always be a little spoiled frat boy thats isnt worth the hair on my Russian ass.
I like Tasty's suggestion. Bush should visit the funerals of a few dead soldiers. Maybe it will expose him to a reality of the world that he has failed to grasp.

Gah, bush is a complete retard, I can't justify ever praising him for anything.  The point of the trip wasn't to make his troop's thanksgiving special, it was to elevate the public opinion of him.  He shouldn't have hundreds of thousands of troops in Iraq in the first place, he goes into a country for what, they couldn't even make up their minds, first it was a war against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, which were non existant.  Then it was suddenly a war about Iraqi freedom, that is complete bs, it was a neo colonialistic movement.  He used September 11th, used it as an excuse to go into Iraq with his axis of evil theory stating that because terrorism came from afghanistan, and afghanistan didn't like the USA, and Iraq also doesn't like the USA, that is a direct connection linking Al-Qaida to Iraq.  How ignorant for the bush administration to think that their view of a perfect american world can be applied to everywhere, where they will overthrow governments and build a new democratic government, and turn the country into an America Jr. where everybody praises and supports America.  What a tool that bush guy is, gah! Don't buy into his propoganda.

As commander in chief, how come he wasn't in Iraq before "mission accomplished"?

I'm not above complementing him when he deserves it, but I don't see why this trip to Iraq is even newsworthy. . .

I find it incredible that he went all the way to Iraq and didn't even take a look around. . .maybe see how the peace keeping effort is going?  If I were a soldier, my Thanksgiving would be a whole lot more pleasant to see my president doing something actually worthwhile instead of cutting up my turkey for me. . .

And please, if a standing army of 100,000 can't keep one man reasonably safe long enough for him to see what he's ordered done to another sovereign nation, we have no business calling ourselves a "superpower".

Finally. . .as long as he's attending funerals, how about one of the Iraqi civilians' whose death he insured?

Lord and Mother Mary forgive my soul for what I am about to do. I thought I would be the last person on this board to defend Bush, but here I am. Yes Bush did this as a pr gain. Guess what, its less than a year away from re-election and it is time to start acting like it. Anyone with any political sense would start to campaign and make a positive image for himself. So yes this is PR (no shit). This gesture was positive overall even though it was for political means. When the leader visits his men on the front line it boosts morale and make the soldiers think that the administration is watching over them. Even if this is false it gives the soldiers relative peace of mind in a naiton that holds them in contempt.

Front lines that shouldn't even exist.  Gah!

I think that it took guts, President Bush did a wonderful thing for his troops, and I'm honored as an american citizen.

I think its odd that the Pentagon won't allow cameras present at the return of the dead to the United States, I wonder why...Iraq is a bullshit war just as Vietnam was and yet again another generation of people my age will carry forever the horrors of war and never be the same. Ask your parents about what Vietnam did to this country and how it was never the same. And at the same time they are cutting veteran benefits, not to mention the tens of thousands of troops who have been horribly wounded and get the shaft when it comes to basic medical care. This war is impossible to win. It is a burden we will all carry for a very long time. I am the most patriotic American you'll ever meet, but when it comes to the Bush regime I am ashamed to be an American. It so sad and frustrating to see this country tricked into a war and bilked for billions of dollars that could be going to things that actually need it(Education). Bush appeals to the mass electorate simply because most Americans are morbidly obese lumps of shit that understand the simple words Bush uses. Just the other day the Pentagon mobilized 17,000 reservist for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan, how many more will it take? How many more people needlessly have to die and become scarred by the horrors of war? I find it funny that the best funded intelligence machine of the United States could not even catch the 9-11 hijackers when their names appeared on the international terrorism watch list and the San Diego phone book at the same time. The question we as Americans need to ask ourselves is are we really anymore safe than we were before Bush went into Iraq and Afghanistan? Fuck no, we pissed them(Islamic radicals) off more than ever and they will counter...this war will come again to the U.S. in a catastrophic event, its inevitable...I will tell you one thing, if King Bush again steals the 04' election i'm packing up and heading for the Canadian border.

heh might as well pack now then. despite constant bashing and playa hatin from stupid little pricks like you, bush still has a higher approval rating than clinton and reagan had at the same time in their first terms. and if dean gets the democratic spot (and it looks like he might), it'll be bush until '08.

If you don't know why it's newsworthy, you should go back and see how many presidents have ever gone to the country we are fighting in a time of war.

Who was the last American President to do it?

All you guys that think doing it didn't take any balls.  There are hundreds of people there that would gladly give their lives to take just a few soldiers out, think about what lengths they'd go to to take out the Prez.  

I don't consider it heroic, but it's not like he played it safe at home just televising a message to the troops.  

And, all of the BHL's here seem to think this meant nothing, because of all the other things that they think he should have done.  I'd say, consider the troops.  Did they get a thrill out of it or not?  And remember that this isn't 1968, none of these soldiers are draftees.  Don't expect the majority of them to share your views.

That is so fucking naive.

Personally, if I were Bush I'd have no problem going to Iraq in a blackened out plane and then staying for two hours, sounds like a walk in the park to me.

Bucc, there's only been the technology for a president to make an easy visit like that (not having to be away from the US for months at a time) in this century.  And presidents have visited war zones during World War Two, Vietnam, Kosovo.  . .there haven't been all that many major conflicts and there aren't but a few that presidents haven't visited.

Who was the last - Clinton.  Look it up.  And if Kosovo isn't dangerous enough for you, you'd have to go back to Vietnam.  Just because Bush Sr.  didn't have the "balls" to do it doesn't make it a general leadership failure.

Don't you think it's the duty of a commander in chief to visit his troops?  And yes, I'm sure it was pleasant for them, but just because they have different political views from mine shouldn't change their desire to have their president accomplish something useful.  Perhaps they would have had a happier Thanksgiving if he'd sent them all back home. . .

And I still stand by the idea that a massed army worth its salt can protect one man.  Given all the security Bush gets from just the Secret Service - how could a devoted and well-trained army not keep him safe?

Finally, "BHL" or not, it's just common sense trying to rule over emotion.  Politics aside, the troops could stand to be a lot more overjoyed by Bush accomplishing something substantial.  Yeah, it was a nice gesture, but the lack of any actual work on Bush's part does sort of cheapen the whole thing into a PR ploy. . .

And ak, I'm encouraged to read your views, but the last thing the rest of America needs is everyone with common sense to leave - someone's got to change things.  For as much as you'd hate to admit it, Canada is within American's sphere of influence, so you might as well stay here and vote.

Oh, and crypt - nice statement, but would you care to back it up with a few more details?  Why did it take guts, and why are you honored?

Some past U.S. presidential trips to war zones:

1863, Gettysburg, Penn: During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln makes his famous speech dedicating a cemetery for battlefield dead.

1943, Morocco: Franklin D. Roosevelt meets British prime minister Winston Churchill at Casablanca, making the first flight by a U.S. president and the first trip outside the United States by a wartime president in the process. At the time, Allied troops were using Morocco as a staging area.

1952, Korea: President-elect Dwight Eisenhower visits battlefronts after a campaign in which he promised Americans he would "go to Korea" to end the war.

1966 and 1967, Vietnam: Lyndon Johnson visits troops at the U.S. military command at Cam Ranh Bay.

1969, Vietnam: Richard Nixon visits troops south of Saigon and meets South Vietnamese president Nguyen Van Thieu.

1990, Saudi Arabia: George H.W. Bush greets U.S. troops at a desert outpost in Saudi Arabia on Thanksgiving Day during the runup to the Persian Gulf war.

1999, Macedonia: Bill Clinton addresses North Atlantic Treaty Organization troops and refugees from Kosovo two weeks after the end of NATO's bombing campaign.

My obese lump of shit remark must of hit home with you eh?

So Ak, you would have rather we did nothing after the World Trade Center's fell and 3,000 peopls died?  You think the terrorists would stop?  Maybe the next one would have been 10,000 dead.  Would you attack Osama's training camps in Afghanistan then?  
     
And to answer your question about if I feel safer today than before 9-11, hell yes I do.  The only thing terrorists understand is force, and force means violence.  It's regrettable but unavoidable.  Al-Quade is obviously still out there, but you have to ask how many more 9-11's, or Istanbul's, we would have seen in the last two years if he still had his camps.  At what point would you finally do something?  Or were you the kid in school that let the bullly beat you up and take your lunch money day after day?

And perhaps Bush just went for the PR.  But the troops appreciate the gesture and that is enough.  He took his Thanksgiving and spent it flying across the Atlantic to be with the men that are fighting for this country.  And for those who think he should have walked around.  What would you rather do on your holiday?  Patrol around the President because he wan't to show his guts to the world, or just enjoy a quiet day and eat a hot meal if just for a few hours?

Lets clear up some misconceptions here; Iraq and Saddam?9-11, there is no proof in existence linking the two, the Bush regime cleverly convinced the American public of the connection and mislead us into a war. Lets step back from this cluster fuck and look at why 9-11 happend in the first place. It was a direct result of mismanaged U.S. foreign policy in the middle east. The U.S. clearly favors Israel when it comes to the middle east, besides arming them with tacticle nuclear weapons we have been key in preventing the creation of a Plaesintian state.

No shit Al-Quada is still out there, we've got thumbs up our asses in Iraq chasing non-existant weapons of mass destruction, when we should be concetrating on finding Usama. By going into Afghainstan we have effectivley forced Al-Quada to spread across the world (namely Indonesia and Bangladesh which are two countries with a hight percent of muslims) and into the realm of electronic existence. This makes them all the more dangerous.

How would I remedy the problem of Global terrorism? First establish a Palestintian state, second look at the demands Usama has made; Removal of all U.S. troops from Arab soil; why not? Shit, I'd be all for getting the hell out of there and drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

For now this war against terrorism is guranteed to fail if it continues to be conducted in the fashion the Bush regime dictates.

The problem with your theory, is that you propose to do the one thing that our government has vowed never to do.  And that is to negotiate with terrorists.  
Besides, Osama is even losing the support of his own people, he's attacking Sauidi citizens, and those two synagogues in Turkey killed more muslime than Jews.  His support is a minority of the Arab world so why the hell should we give in to him?

We have supported Israel and they have made some bad moves, but they also are easily th most terrorized nation on Earth.  They've been fighting for their very survival for more than 50 years, and the Jews as a whole for thousands.  So cut them a bit of slack.  And Bush has laid a roadmap to a Palestinian state as most Presidents have.  The problem is the Palestinians, and not the Israelis, broke the cease-fire.  

And in regards to our forces on Arab soil.  Don't you think the Kuwaiti's and Saudi's were pretty damn happy to have us there in 91?  That's why Kuwait let us base out of their country for the invasion of Iraq.  

I did not mean to link 9-11 and Iraq if that's how you read it.  But I firmly believe that given a few more years of the normal UN bullshit.  Sadaam would have possesed chemical or biological weapons again.  And he tried to assasinate Bush Sr. so what's to keep him from actually giving those weapons to terrorists?  Or maybe just using them on his neighbors and the Kurds again.

Either way, look at your own words:


Well, think about how many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of US security after an attack that cost 3000 lives.

It's more than 10000 there alone. . .

If I remember correctly the U.S. gave Saddam chemical weapons in the 1980's when they were at war with Iran. Then they used them against the Kurds, and what did we do? Nothing. I understand the U.S. policy to forsake negotiation with terrorists and when applied to this particular instance it is plain stupid. They will never stop, they are fueled by the relentless force of religious fanaticism. Sometimes I think the Bush regime is as well. These two forces, with their vow to never give up their cause equals nothing more than a never ending cycle of death and destruction. The phrase "War against Terrorism" is absolutely absurd. War is conventional, as it is declared. Terrorism is unconventional and sporadic. A war against such a tool as terrorism has no outcome but increased violence.

I don't understand what is being accomplished by the Bush regime. Do they plan to kill every single Islamic radical? This is an impossibility. We must take steps to ensure a feasible remedy to this problem, and if this includes negotiating, then so be it.

For all of those who support the war, I am absolutely sure you are not feeling the effects of such horrors firsthand. It is so easy to pronounce support from the safety of your personal confinements. I promise though, if you tasted the true ills of such a conflict your thoughts and feelings on the topic would change. Visit the Vietnam memorial sometime and tell me was that worth it?

I plan to be alive in the next 40 years, if fate shall have it. What will be of this country in 40 years is to me not so clear, we will still be fighting an impossible crusade? Lets be realistic that's what this is a modern day crusade. Why can we not in all of man's great achievements learn from what history has taught us? And loudness the number of Iraqi civilians killed in this war has not been released to the public from the Pentagon(wonder why) but I assure you it?s in the hundreds of thousands.

hundreds of thousands huh?
and you can assure me of it?  ;)
...hmm

I apologize I was including Iraqi military deaths in my estimate not just civlilans, but in my opinon a life is a life. The fact is we will probably never know the actual amounts of those killed. To quote General Tommy Franks "We don't do body counts".

np spetz...nothin wrong with a little exaggeration to better dramatize your political views. lot of that goin on nowadays ;)

Damn it cutter! You know Bush's minion and the anti-christ John Ascroft was responsible for putting Tommy Chong in jail! ;D ;D ;D Thats one issue I will agree with you upon though..Free Tommy Chong indeed!

If iraq can't keep terrorists from forming, living, and developing more 9/11 style attacks, we(America)'re gonna show them how it's done.  Yeah, with force.  Now stfu to all the anti war bs'ers.  Force needs to be used at times.  And this is one of them.  End of story. >:(

I wonder who the anonymous lamer is?
To the anonymous lamer:
Sweden never gets hit by terrorism. I bet Americans think that is becuase we are so small and so unimportant to care about... but how about this:

MOST OTHER COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD WOULD NOT ACT LIKE ASSHOLES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY LATER GET TARGETTED BY TERRORISTS. BEHAVE, ASSHOLES!

That was me, quoting myself. I am Acri. Who are you?

I love your avatar Acri.

haha imagine this scenario spetz...bush gets shot down over iraq...all the dems start partying, all the towelheads go into cheers. and then reality sets in, now instead of bush leading the nation and the war, it's left up to cheney and rumsfeld. what do you think comes next?...omfg you better hope nothing ever happens to bush. now do you see how bush going to iraq was extremely risky? not so much just for him...but for all the world.

1811694, your post speaks more about your ignorance than I have to point out. Educate yourself further on the topic and you will find the propaganda harder to swallow.

Cutter, I agree, If Cheney and Rumsfeld took control it would be the start of the Apocalypse. Honestly though, have you ever heard Bush make a speech? If that isn't enough to convince you he is unfit to be the MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD, then I don't know what is.
 
To quote the man himself:
 "This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." -George W. Bush

To be fair and balanced here's a quote from the other side:
"Here is America struck by God Almighty ... so that its greatest buildings are destroyed ... I swear to God that America will not live in peace before peace reigns in Palestine, and before the army of the infidels depart the land of Mohammed." -Osama Bin Laden

and oh yeah...FREE TOMMY CHONG!. americas drug policy should worry you more than it's towelhead policy. in some states you can have merely a seed, stem , or residue trace of weed and be convicted of a felony. that means you can never vote or be a lawfull gun owner, until you can hire a good lawyer years down the road and hope to get those rights back. and in states that have the three strike law people like us could get a life sentence. just for smokin weed. sad ain't it?  and it isn't just the "republican regime" spetz...i lost a year of my life and many rights givin to every american while clinton was in office. i was around your age when it happened. that's the fight you should be going after, thats a war i'd like to win ;D

Cutter, agreed, check this out if  you havent already http://www.guerrillanews.com/crack/qt_hi.html , props to Revolt for the linkage.

The very reason we do not in any circumstance agree to a terrorists demands is that once you do you have set a precedent.  And every terrorist will expect to get his goals met.  And in my opinion, you will not see terrorism go away.  It will grow.  And that same group you appeased will be so proud of themselves that they will start up again to get more.  

If you want an example just look at North Korea.  I'm not associating N.K. with terrorism just an analogy.  Clinton appeased them, he gave them food, and they halted their nuclear ambitions.  So what happens?  They keep it going in secret.  But when we find out and stop our shipments of aid, they complain of this great injustice and start negotiating for even more aid to stop their programs.  When does it stop?

I see what you're saying and if everyone was level-headed, and had common sense it would work.  The problem is the majority of the world is not a nice place.  Radicals and dictators whose only ambition in life is to rule over everyone else control a lot of it.  And they don't give two shits about human rights, just furthering their own agendas.  you can never stop a man like that through appeasement.  And you spoke of learning from history.  Well what did Europe do in the 1930's?  They appeased a madman and look what it got them.  5 of the bloodiest years in the history of the world.  

And in regards to Sweden.  Why would they?  They get nothing out of it.  But somebody has to be the big kid on the block so he is the one everbody targets.  It does not matter what are foreign policies really are in the most part.  To people like Osama, the United States is the example of everything they hate.  Like Freedom, woman with power, and everything else their radical beliefs disagree with.  All Sweden looks like to them is a bank.  And they have money so whats the point?  

To close, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been probably the least bloody the warld has known.  Yes innocents have died.  Thats a given in war.  But the casualties on both sides have been minor compared to virtually any other war.  It still sucks but until the entire world comes to it's senses and realizes that force will not get you anything when there are those to oppose you, then war will always be a possibility.  

Oh and Ak, I know a few hundred people personally who went, and they suport the war.  Would they like to go back?  Not really but they will, and I willl join them.  Their are actually worse things in this world than war.

I see your point and it makes sense. The only point I have to make is that the so called war against terrorism is doomed to fail if it is continued in its current manner.

In the United States the culprit can often be found by following the money. Let me be frank, money is what makes this country go around. What is more important in an election year than the economy? Nothing. What is one of the best things for an ailing economy? War. What is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in America? The military industrial complex. And what does the military industrial complex need to survive? War. This is just my opinion, I will admit to having a more pessimistic view of life, but the truth is more often than not the unthinkable.

In regards to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq being the least bloody in history, Im not sure about the figures but im pretty sure Bush senior's war back in 91' had less deaths.

There are worse things in this world than war? Off the top of my head, I can't think of  many. Perhaps STD's and famine, but are those really worse than war? I have the utmost respect for anyone who has ever served for this country. Where my respect runs thin, is for those who are in Washington making decisions in the interest of personal gain, rather than for the betterment of this country.
 
I leave you with one final thought, how many troops have to die for it to be apparent that this war cannot be won? 10,000? 15,000? 20,000? or will our government as it did in Vietnam, realize that this war cannot be won until some 55,000 plus die?

I agree with you that money makes this world go round.  Hell, Economy was one of the only classes I really felt was worthwhile in high school.  And it is also true that war brings out the best in the economy.  The great depression ended due to WW2, and this one has undoubtedly helped in pulling us out of this recession.  But I have to believe that this was fought for a greater purpose than that.  I know Bush has pulled some shady things like every president, but to me Sadaam did represent a true threat to the world so I don't believe the conspiracy theorists when it comes to this.  

And the occupation of Iraq has turned out much like the occupations of Germany and Japan.  Newspaper reports from the time paint pretty much the same picture that we are seeing in the new now so I know this is a battle that can be won.  It just takes time.  The only militants in Iraq are the Sunni minority that had a cushy life under Sadaam and the normal radicals that hate everything American.  Hopefully we will see a change once the Iraqi's begin to truly govern themselves and the Iraqi people understand our true intentions as right now they have every right to be skeptical.

To me the things that are worse than war do not necessarily cause death.  It's indiference, and not believing that there is nothing that is actually worth fighting for.  This may seem like an underdramitization but is there nothing that you personally have that you would fight for.  That you would rather die than give up?  Not necessarily just a pocession.  

Geez, I've been away all weekend and come back to THIS!  I'm really much too mad to post anything right now.....I'll come back later after I calm down a bit.

-GhostSniper Out.

okay hathcock, come on, I think you've been way too blinded by propoganda.  The war in Iraq is not a war on terrorism, do you know of the means through which they conveyed that message to the public?  Let me inform you, George Bush asks a speechwriter to develop a link between Al-Qaida and Iraq so that they can develop it as a war on terrorism, and what they come up with is the Axis of Evil theory.  Let me give you the gist of it... Through the axis of evil theory there is a direct link between Al-Qaida and Iraq as Al-Qaida doesn't like the united states, and lo and behold, neither does Iraq, poof, Iraq is definitely involved in terrorism against the united states throught that crystal clear connection.  There was no terrorism coming from Iraq to the United States, George Bush used sept 11th to achieve his goals, he used it to get the support he needed and previously couldn't obtain without the patriotic anger and desire for retribution that the events of that day sparked.  

a couple numbers to keep things in perspective. first, any life lost (on either side) is terrible. however, until nations start learning from us and start cb'ing for bragging rights. war and death is how they do it.

WWI - 112,432 american soldiers dead.
           $112 billion spent (how much would that be now?)

WWII - 300,000 american soldiers dead.
            $2 trillion+ (again, how much would that be now?)

American civil war - 620,000 american soldiers dead

Vietnam war - 58,000 dead american soldiers (3,000 per day)
                      $40 billion

War in Afghanistan and Iraq - less than 600 dead american soldiers.
                     $120 billion and counting

like i said every single life on either side is horribly tragic. but  people need to stop comparing iraq to vietnam. there really is no comparison. the difference is the constant news coverage of every single injury and death that occurs on the battlefield. think about that for a minute....less than 600 dead in two years compared to 3000 dead every single day.

and fridge, i remember bush saying after 9/11... that anybody who provides shelter or support for terrorists, is just as bad as the terrorist and will behunted down and taken out.
how long did it take for saddam after that speech to announce a $15,000 gift to the family of suicide bombers in israel? i also remember that within two weeks after that, saddam raised it to $25,000.

thats's just about all i'd need to go into iraq.

lets not forget that clinton was the one who pulled the inspectors out just to launch some missles into iraq. (with-out going to the U.N. first) , bush did at least try to go through the U.N. which in reality was just a nice gesture that back-fired in his face. (FTF!)

I truly hope there will be no obvious similarities between Iraq and Vietnam, I fear this country could not take another tragic event on the scale of Vietnam. The parallels I draw between the two however, are that in each instance (in my opinion) they are doomed causes. Like in Vietnam the leadership of today has vowed to never give up.

Another comparison that in my opinion is justified, is the fact that in Iraq as in Vietnam we are facing an enemy on their home turf. We are facing a similar style of guerilla tactics, that were applied very effectively against our traditional military style. Time will tell.

Its too late to pull out now, we are there and we must fix what we have disrupted. The things that I find unacceptable are that we went in without multinational support and we had no actual plan for what to do after deposing Sadaam.This lack of forethought will ultimately doom this war to failure.
 

Cutter - maybe your stats are a little off. . .I wasn't alive back then, so I can't speak for sure, but your numbers on the Vietnam war don't match up.  3000 a day for a total of 58000 would equate to only 20 days, and I know the war was longer than that. . .

Anyway, quick comment about Bush dead.  I think having Cheney in power would be a positive thing.  He's already running most of the show behind the scenes, so putting his machinations in the world view just might bring a bit of accountability.

yeah you're right. i don't remember where i heard that, mb it was a different war. i was thinking mb korea which lasted 3 years with the close to the same number of dead. but even that wouldn't work out, by my math 15-20 per day in vietnam and 50-55 per day in korea. i have no idea where 3000 came from, i heard it somewhere recently though and it caught my attention. still in vietnam we lost 5800 per year and in korea we lost 20333 per year much different than 300 per year in iraq.
damn short-term memory ;D

Its around 600 and it hasnt been a year yet, but your point still stands. The rate and severity of the conflict of Iraq is very much different from Nam.

--- Here is a pasted email I sent out today after viewing that crack video link. I think this is an appropriate place to add it in. ----

I've come upon some great quicktime videos from http://www.guerrillanews.com/:  
http://www.guerrillanews.com/redux/qt_hi.html
http://www.guerrillanews.com/crack/qt_hi.html

Personally,  I've read some really good material lately, books, webnews, some very reliable sources of material, and then others that are somewhat questionable but yet congruent with other reliable sources.  It's even occasionally apparent on national sources, tv, radio, and newspaper.  It's all really hard to fathom, because it is so against the grain of popular american belief.  But taken as a whole, it begins to add up.  Something is wrong.  And I don't believe the direction our world leaders are taking us is the solution we want for our future.  The reality of our situation is blurred by our leaders, and until the people can comprehend what is really happening the direction will never change.  

I still have interest in starting a web page that infuses art and politics.  However there are so many good ones popping up.  It's also just a matter of time.  

I still find that the best sources are:
http://www.moveon.org/
http://slate.msn.com//

And still my favorite, a great, enlightening book to read is "Rogue Nation: American Unilateralism & the Failure of Good Intentions" By Clyde Prestowitz

new found web page, all about george W:
http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/

I just visited some of those web sites SICKboy, and I have to tell you that that is some of the biggest liberal bullshit I've ever seen.  Now, anyone who really thinks that what is contained in www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com is TRUE, you are the biggest idiot I've ever met.  Eat shit and die you fucking communist socialist cocksuckers.  I bet you cried the day the Soviet Union fell.

lol!!! Bravo macuser1984!!!

Chill out.  I don't preach that all these sights or info is the all knowing truth.  I breazed through there and saw this section where they excerpt news paper clippings. http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/rogue/index.html

For my real news i go to the Onion.com.

How about you post a Bush lover link for me?

Wow people get pretty angry at eachother for having different opinions.  No wonder there's so much war in the world.

Amen to that.

Macuser1984, it really is not astonishing to hear such vulgar and inappropriate backlash from simple minded people such as yourself and those who actually support Bush. Honestly couldn't you come up with something a little more constructive, perhaps link a site disproving or state your point of view in a non-offensive way. I really do not need to point out your antagonistic arrogance, as your post speaks for itself.

If you read the many other posts contained within this thread you will find that they are intelligent and well thought out no matter what opinion is being expressed. When a disagreement does indeed occur, childish attacks are not resorted to in any instance accept your own. Such simple minded attacks are so often resorted to because of an innate lack of knowledge on the subject being discussed.

I shall not retort with a childish attack of my own, rather I will leave you with a quote.
 
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."   -George W. Bush

     Is it just me, or is that Bush quote uncomfortably Hitleresque?

Its not just you. I chose to display that particular quote because it conveys what Bush is all about. There is nothing more dangerous than a subvert theocratic democracy in which the electorate are largely indifferent when it comes to foreign policy. The question of the existence of God is a whole other thread in its self. Personally it is frightening to think that the most powerful and advanced nation in the world is headed by a man who talks to God. Next time you go into work late, tell your boss it was because you were talking to God and see what happens. Why is it therefore acceptable to base a nations foreign policy on a religious basis?

whered u get that quote, spetz?

 Baz, http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bush.htm  ...I see you are a buckeye, as am I.  

You'll notice that the quote on the site is Hearsay from the Frmr. Palestinean Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas - nowhere is there a second source to verify the truth or falseness of the quote, though I don't doubt that Bush may have said something similar - I doubt he used those exact words - his handlers would never have allowed it.


As for the websites Ssickboy presented, I present this quote from Moveon.org:

40 senators is a "resounding rejection" and a "huge victory"? What are they smoking? Maybe if 70 senators had voted AGAINST the bill, they'd have something.

This brings up the abuse of the filibuster and its modern, horrible incarnation (the senators don't even have to go up and get out the cots and read from the telephone book anymore!)


Anyway, if you want a website where the Issues are discussed with BOTH sides of the story presented, and thinkers are welcomed, not tossed out as "conservative reactionaries" - I've found its tough to go wrong with openDemocracy http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp (http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp)

Use some common sense here people - Yes, Bush has some problems. Yes, he's made some mistakes. But the economy is on the rebound, 30 million people will get to live in freedom, and the US is safer from A-Q and Mr Sodamn Insane!

Common sense doesn't make me think that:

1.  The economy is on the rebound.  Yes, a few indicators have improved, but unless it just gets better on its own through some sort of free market excessiveness of optimism (not likely with all the other crap going on) it's not getting any better, because the administration hasn't properly applied the needed stimuli.

2.  30 million people will get to live in freedom.  Have you ever stopped for a moment and wondered what the US would do if the Iraqi people elect an oppressive tyrant we don't approve of?  It's not that far-fetched a possibility, given the current political climate and cultural history of the area.  And if you elect your dictator, are you living in freedom?  In that case, Iraqis were already free under Hussein.  Nothing has suggested to me that there's any way the elections will be fair.

3.  The US is safer.  Wow, optimism is your strong suit.  Why on earth do you feel any safer having two supposed terrorists underground where you can't monitor them, doing who knows what, as opposed to being out in the open.  I guess they can't use training facilities anymore. . .gee, I feel so safe.  It's not like it takes that much training to blow yourself up.

Anyway, the moveon website was correct in that despite the drastic measures required, a potentially damaging and terrible piece of legislation was not enacted.  It's a shame that our country has to resort to such lengths.  And it would be unreasonable to expect all websites to provide both sides of the issue.  Everyone's opinions are worth publishing, not only those in the middle.

Thanks for the link westmasta.  So far I like it.

The scariest thing for me is the all the organized, huge money backed, private/value/religious institutions and companies that lobby and fund our Politicians.  Most of these have a seemingly tight grip on Republican Policies, and even have some influence on the Democrat's side.  It has gotten so out of hand that our government is losing it's true democratic form.  

So these smaller grass roots, for the people, non-profit organizations like Moveon.org are trying to bring more power to the people.  And keep those who are interested informed through the web.  It's fast, and interactive.  I admit, it's "liberal" leaning.  I just never thought the Christian Coalation ever shared my view of reality.