Bush Goes to Iraq!

[Cutter]

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.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

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. . .

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.

[kami]

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!

That is so fucking naive.

[kami]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

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?

[Cutter]

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.

[ak-47]

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.

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

[c| Hathcock]

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?

[ak-47]

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.

[c| Hathcock]

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.

[jn.loudnotes]

Either way, look at your own words:

Maybe the next one would have been 10,000 dead.

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. . .

[ak-47]

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.

[Cutter]

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

[ak-47]

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".

[Cutter]

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

[ak-47]

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

[1811694]

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.

[Acri]

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?

[kami]

I love your avatar Acri.

[Cutter]

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.