Originally posted by generalissimoLying about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading a country that had none? Lying about Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks? Lying about Iraq being a threat to America's security? Reading a childrens book when America was under attack. The unnecessary slaughter of over 25,000 innocent Iraq women and children. Which of these "achievements" whould you like to anaylize?? 😏
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3965454/George-W-Bush-winning-the-war-on-terror.html
''Criticism of George W Bush is often driven by a dislike of his personality, not analysis of his achievements''
Originally posted by bill718The iraq war was a mistake, however that doesn't mean the whole war on terror is doomed to fail.
Lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading a country that had none? Lying about Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks? Lying about Iraq being a threat to America's security? Reading a childrens book when America was under attack. The unnecessary slaughter of over 25,000 innocent Iraq women and children. Which of these "achievements" whould you like to anaylize?? 😏
The war on terror is a matter of PR. To recruit terrorists, you need people who hate the US. If there is no reason to hate the US, you can't recruit terrorists. It's that simple. Of course, going around the world fighting pointless wars is not good PR, so if anything the US has helped terrorist organisations by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
1 edit
Originally posted by generalissimo" Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3965454/George-W-Bush-winning-the-war-on-terror.html
''Criticism of George W Bush is often driven by a dislike of his personality, not analysis of his achievements''
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel.
...
The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. "
Originally posted by generalissimoActually, you have that backwards. Removing Saddam and allowing a democratic oil-rich Arab nation to arise from the ashes was Bush's only good achievement. But let's not give Bush II much of the credit for the idea -- in fact, he was only finishing what his father started.
The iraq war was a mistake, however that doesn't mean the whole war on terror is doomed to fail.
The so-called war on terror is an expensive boondoggle which has achieved nothing and never will achieve anything because there is no way to define an objective for it.
Bush II is hated because he was a secretive, ignorant, stubborn leader surrounded by fascist advisors determined to make the US Presidency a pseudo-dictatoriship.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe War on Terror isn't about AQ or Saddam. In the long term, it isn't even about kinetic military action beyond what's necessary to begin cultural reform or defend against immediate threats.
Yeah, if they didn't know Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda. You know, they don't really like secular leaders.
In an ignorant analysis, Bush is always called a moron because he used the military and militarily is not ultimately how reforms will be accomplished. That's intellectual dishonesty. On one hand, they're able too see that the WoT is a long game, lasting generations, but on the other, they stop their analysis about Bush' policies with military action in Iraq. Rightfully, they should be looking at Iraq and it's effects on it's neighbors several generations from now.
Not that I believe Iraq to be the silver bullet, but it does have it's advantages over taking the same action in other countries in the region. I would have liked to have seen the Theocratic Oligarchy be dispensed with, but Iran would take considerably more resources than Iraq. Pakistan is another hotbed, but is a failed state of epidemic proportions and therefore not practical for reform anytime in the next century. Creating a functioning economy able to reduce poverty and increase education enough to reduce the terrorism taught there is not possible on all except the longest of timeframe. Saudi Arabia is a hornets nest without equal and would be an order of magnitude more difficult than even Iran. Which leaves us with Either Iraq or Syria. (The remaining states being either stable and frindly enough to more valuable as allies, or too small have much of a payoff)
Taking Syria may have had the added bonus of removing the middle-man between Iran and Hamas/Hezballah and thereby helping cool the Isreal/Palestine issue but then again, maybe it wouldn't have helped at all. And more importantly, Syria doesn't have the influence in the region that Iraq does and wouldn't have been any easier than Iraq.
Originally posted by bill718"Lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading a country that had none?"
Lying about weapons of mass destruction in order to justify invading a country that had none? Lying about Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks? Lying about Iraq being a threat to America's security? Reading a childrens book when America was under attack. The unnecessary slaughter of over 25,000 innocent Iraq women and children. Which of these "achievements" whould you like to anaylize?? 😏
Lying is the intentional telling of untruths. If the Bush administration lied, then so did the Clinton Administration before it. WMDs were the justification of Clinton for going to war with Iraq, you know firing hundreds of cruise missiles into the capital city. We will never know whether or not there were WMDs, as the invasion under Bush was telegraphed by more than 18 months of warnings, and United Nations tauroscatology.
"Lying about Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks?"
No Bush administration official, never mind Bush himself ever once said there was any direct link between Iraq and al Queda. Check this mythology before repeating it.
"Lying about Iraq being a threat to America's security?"
This is a repeat of the first false premise.
"Reading a childrens book when America was under attack."
And what do you think he should have done? Panic the kids!
"The unnecessary slaughter of over 25,000 innocent Iraq women and children."
Perhaps you might lay that at the feet of the executed Sadaam Hussein, who called Bush's bluff holding an empty hand. He bet Bush that his courage and leadership was as luke warm and wimpy as Clinton's. He lost that bet, and his people suffered.
Blame FDR for all the needless suffering of the Germans and Japanese.
Originally posted by zeeblebotActually progress in Iraq is at a much faster pace to pacification than happened in Germany after WWII.
" Ten or twenty years from now, historians will view Bush's actions on the world stage in a more favourable light. America's 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade I ...[text shortened]... he insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. "
Bush will likely be kindly regarded by honest historians.
Originally posted by zeeblebotMilitarily not any more difficult. The two fought a nine year stalemate. Iran would have been a much easier place to pacify post war as it never had the ethnic and religious conflicts that have always tortured Iraq. The thee distinct factions in Iraq, Suni, Sheite, and Kurd, is distinctly different from the pure Sheite religion in Iran, with the major factions there being mainly religious and secular.
why would iran be harder than iraq?
Iraq was the logical target due to it's continuous disregard of UN resolutions, and the conclusion of the old and new administrations of its WMD capabilities and ambitions.
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotIran has a much better terror infrastructure in place. I.E. more trained domestic insurgents, dedicated to religious governance on top of the flood of foreign nationals. Whereas Iraq had less terror infrastructure in place and those insurgents that were domestic Iraqis weren't (overall) as dedicated to religious governance as Iranians are.
why would iran be harder than iraq?
The Iranian youth movement is a plus, but they're not any help in fighting trained and well organized insurgents.
Edit: We also have a better relationship with Kurds in Iraq than with do with Iranian Kurds and the Kurds were far more help to us in Iraq than they could have been in Iran.
Another imprtant thing is that anti-American sentiment has more fervor in Iran. The more anti-American a culture is, the more difficult it will be for America to fight a COIN op. As well as how much a population likes the government that was just removed. The Iranian government is more popular with its people than Saddam was.
Originally posted by MerkAll probably factors making Iran a more difficult enemy, but the principle problem in Iraq for the last two years has been the Iranian imported insurgents. Would there have been a similar import of insurgents from Iraq? I doubt it.
Iran has a much better terror infrastructure in place. I.E. more trained domestic insurgents, dedicated to religious governance on top of the flood of foreign nationals. Whereas Iraq had less terror infrastructure in place and those insurgents that were domestic Iraqis weren't (overall) as dedicated to religious governance as Iranians are.
The Iranian youth ...[text shortened]... that was just removed. The Iranian government is more popular with its people than Saddam was.
The military victory in Iraq took only a few months. It may have taken a few more months in Iran, and any asymetrical warfare afterward would have been domestic and more easily defeated than the foreign "insurgents" imported into Iraq.
In Iraq the US has faced the same military quandery it didn't deal with in Korea, in Vietnam, and now in Iraq. It did not, some say could not pursue the enemy where the enemy lived. They could hit and run, lick their wounds, and come back whenever they were ready.