Originally posted by LordofADown1. I see no pre-war evidence that shows the president had any inkling of what the reality of the war was going to be (remember: greeted as liberators?). Therefore it seems stupid to me to say that he was prepared for the consequences, because in every instance after the invasion he has shown a clear lack of preparedness, planning, etc.
YOU think it's a mistake, he was prepared for the consequences and he accepts them, this is no mistake to him.
I said that I would not support a president that would be full set on a War one week and want to take it back the next, because that shows major failures in planning.
A president that does that should have seen that the war wasn't going erican People get all the facts straight before they began to express their support for war?
2. While doing a complete 180 would show major failures in planning, at least it shows policy based on reality. Allowing a failing plan to continue, as this president has done, shows both failure in planning and stubborn arrogence; this has been nothing but unproductive and wasteful.
3. A president does not have to have foreknowledge of victory before starting a war. What he does need however is the moral imperative (i.e. war must be the absolute last resort), a flexible plan, and detailed knowledge of the enemy. Again Bush has shown he had none of these.
4. While I agree in principle, the American people were assualted by propaganda, whether from the administration or the compliant media, in the months leading up to the war. To expect rationality on such a large scale, especially after 9/11, is a pretty tall order. At least we were smart enough to throw the bums out this time around...
- All right, I really have to get to bed (it's 3:30 A.M. here). If you'd still like to continue this conversation you can just pm me rather than post in a thread that really belongs somewhere else. Plus I'd rather all these Richfeet threads are ignored anyway. 90% of them are spam.
- Oh bleh, I was trying to respond point by point, but it seems the reply editor cut it off. Anyways you can probably still reconstruct which part of your post I was responding to.
Originally posted by richfeetCut all of those social programs and put those lazy bastards to work regardless of what race they are. Get them off of the Government teat.
Reagan didnt care for the underclass in the USA he cared even less for minorities and the poor much like our current PRESIDENT Reagan cut social programs that i saw hurt people who really needed them and lets not forget about Iran /Contra REAGAN WAS A GOOD TALKER WHO SEDUCED A LOT OF FOLKS BUT HE WAS NOT A GREAT PRESIDENT IF YOU WERE NOT WELL OFF.
Originally posted by Ramiri15Perhaps you should get your facts straight eh? Quoting a blog doesn't support your statement any more than my own. I could quote many sites that would back up my statements but I guess if you want to ignore what Bush is doing then you deserve what you get in the end.
Please get your facts straight on this matter.
http://tinyurl.com/y5uqpd
Seriously, quoting this study is borderline ridiculous, and only serves to allow others to attack your credibility while ignoring the validity of what you're arguing. The fact is the Iraq war is a tragedy whether 1000 people died or 100,000, so just make sure to have your data correct when you make your point.
😛
Originally posted by arrakisYou've got to be kidding me; that was a press release from Iraq Body Count, not some stupid person's blog. Here's the site again:
Perhaps you should get your facts straight eh? Quoting a blog doesn't support your statement any more than my own. I could quote many sites that would back up my statements but I guess if you want to ignore what Bush is doing then you deserve what you get in the end.
😛
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Look in the box at the bottom of the page that says "Press Release: Some Responses to the Latest Lancet Estimates." This time actually read the findings; the analysis done on it simply tears their results apart. After you're done with that, take a look at how a real database is compiled and compare the different levels of professionalism. One group of researchers takes broad brush polls of "random" civilians and multiplies the results by 2000, while another group counts each death individually, requiring corroboration before adding to the total. Which group's data would you trust more?
Finally, to try to give everyone here the most accurate data concerning Iraq's casualties so others don't have to do the digging themselves, after a look at all the other studies Iraq Body Count is paired against, IBC admits to underreporting the data (inevitable since they require corroboration) but by at most a factor of 2 - this done by comparing their data to the ILCS (essentially a much more rigorous Lancet-like survey).
This is how data collecting is done right. Looking at their own methodology and analyzing its flaws IBC has taken their data as a lower bound, and found another trustworthy source with which to compare that gives an upper bound. Thus they have concluded, with evidence we can probably trust, that the death toll is around 80,000 - 120,000.
Next time don't be so quick to accuse others of bias; I try to do as much research as possible before making posts like this, and I simply was trying to correct something I saw was a factual error.
Originally posted by Ramiri15It's crap guy... just like your mindset. If you really want to know the truth (which I'm sure you wouldn't be able to handle) just visit:
You've got to be kidding me; that was a press release from Iraq Body Count, not some stupid person's blog. Here's the site again:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Look in the box at the bottom of the page that says "Press Release: Some Responses to the Latest Lancet Estimates." This time actually read the findings; the analysis done on it simply tears ...[text shortened]... s like this, and I simply was trying to correct something I saw was a factual error.
http://www.mercola.com/2006/dec/12/america-freedom-to-fascism.htm
Open that closed mind...
Originally posted by LordofADown"but why didn't the American People get all the facts straight before they began to express their support for war?"
Whoa Whoa Whoa, YOU think it's a mistake, he was prepared for the consequences and he accepts them, this is no mistake to him. Don't put words in my mouth because I never said that, I said that I would not support a president that would be full set on a War one week and want to take it back the next, because that shows major failures in planning. A pre ...[text shortened]... wait and think about the decision. This is OUR fault(Americans), not the fault of one man.
Because the facts in question were classified...
I don't normally participate here, but I was browsing and this just amused me to no end. The Arrakis post regarding GW Bush...
-He created terrorism where none existed.
Terrorism was global prior to his presidency. You are probably trying to make a reference to Iraq, an Islamic country, where Al Qaida did not operate until there were foreigners there for them to combat. If it wasn't happening there it would be happening somewhere else. They are smart and take advantage of opportunities. Iraq's current situation is much too tempting for them to ignore.
-He has created a world movement against the United States.
You obviously haven't travelled much. Most of the world has hated the US for a very long time. The reasons vary depending on which country you are in. The world and the US have long enjoyed a love-hate relationship. The US has a powerful military that runs around killing anyone who doesn't play the way we want them to in the sandbox, and as a result generally peaceful countries don't have to spend large portions of their GNP on sustaining a large military because they will get US military assistance if a neighbor gets aggressive.
-He set up institutions to torture people w/o a court hearing.
Yeah, that stuff never happened prior to this administration. If you believe that then you will also believe that you can be the next president.
-He is solely responsible for the decline of the American dollar.
This is impressive. I don't suppose the decades of industrial decline had anything to do with the trade deficits that largely contribute to the value of the US dollar vs other world currencies. He certainly hasn't done anything to strengthen its value, but he is far from soley responsible for its decline.
-He has spent over a trillion dollars of the taxpayer's money.
Congress authorizes government budgets. GW can ask for anything he wants, but he can't break out the checkbook.
-He has put all Americans in debt for the next 50 years.
While it is true there was a somewhat 'balanced' budget when GW took office, prior to 'the war' there were still trillions of dollars in debt that had been accumulated by several previous administrations. Yes, he is adding to it, but he had a lot of help creating it.
-He has destroyed the unions in America.
Organized labor has been creating its own demise for decades. I am not sure what you might be thinking of here unless it is the loss of power and influence they have when the jobs they were regulating get moved overseas. Unions in general try to create an atmosphere where all workers are treated the same regardless of their contributions to the company they work for. Promotions and layoffs are determined based on longevity with the company or union and nothing else. They discourage hard work and reward laziness, and they have done this for decades. They have had as much to do with their eroding influence as any non-union factor ever could.
-He has helped the American companies move jobs to other countries.
Funny how factors all influence each other. Labor groups work hard to maintain high salaries and benefits, even for relatively unskilled jobs, workers think they are owed strong living wages and benefits for doing a job that takes an afternoon of on the job training to learn, jobs move overseas where there is cheap unskilled labor, and it is all something that just happened in the last 6 years and it is all GW's fault. Yeah, right!
-He has destroyed the Social Security system by using the money.
The Social Security system was insolvent by all measures before GW ever took his first term of office. Decades of federal budget deficits have been financed by borrowing from the Social Security excess funds. The only reason anybody cares about this now is because the baby boomers are nearing retirement and there will be more retired people than working people (unless something changes) and those borrowed funds will be needed to pay benefits to those retirees. Since those funds right now are just 'promises to repay' that money will have to come from somewhere the year it is needed.
-He is responsible for tens of thousands of Americans who have lost limbs.
This is probably largely true. One reality of modern warfare is that prompt battleground medical attention allows more casualties to survive major trauma, including lost limbs, than would have been the case is wars of yesteryear. A lot of attention is given to the death toll, but there is a lifelong toll many are taking as a result of their participation in military operations. Even if you aren't physically injured there can be psychological trauma that is even more difficult to treat, or even diagnose.
You should also note that comments about killing the president, even joking, can bring about results you never anticipated. If you continue to post public messages about your wish to kill the president, don't be surprised if you get a visit sometime in your future. The Secret Service takes all threats seriously, even if they are just the rantings of someone frustrated with current policy.
Originally posted by TippedKingNice post... ..rec'ed.
-He has destroyed the Social Security system by using the money.
The Social Security system was insolvent by all measures before GW ever took his first term of office. Decades of federal budget deficits have been financed by borrowing from the Social Security excess funds. The only reason anybody cares about this now is because the baby boomers are nea ...[text shortened]... re just 'promises to repay' that money will have to come from somewhere the year it is needed.
I find it rather ironic that it's largely the baby boomers who've been voting for politicians who are looting their own retirement (so-so security) funds each year. Also, I believe you'll find that these same baby boomers have typically done a lousy job of saving their own personal retirement funds. So now they're looking to use the ballot box to force their kids and grandkids to bail them out. Maybe they should have been called the big whiny babies rather than the baby boomers.
Originally posted by arrakisThis is a link to a movie about the IRS, posted by a doctor who advocates "natural cures" and can't spell the word "definitely" right in his review. This also has absolutely nothing to do with Iraqi casualties.
http://www.mercola.com/2006/dec/12/america-freedom-to-fascism.htm
Why are you changing the subject?
Originally posted by arrakisThat's funny. I look out the window and see my country, more or less in one piece. We can argue about whether that's because of or in spite of G.W., but it's certainly not an awful lot different than it was before he took office. What country are you from?
George W Bush has destroyed my country.