President Bush has saved us all!
 

Imagine for a moment, if Gore became a president. 9-11 would of still had happened and Gore probally would of done basically the same things as bush(near or on the day). But after that America would have done nothing. Gore would have sent a few cruise missles and called it a day. Al-Queda would still be at max level and would just come up with a greater, more devasting attack. America would have forgotten all about the middle east. Saddam Hussein would still be dictator of Iraq, forever ruling with an iron fist.

Americans have sacrificed a few(500+) for thousands upon thousands. Hussein commited genocide upon HIS OWN PEOPLE. Killing the hundreds of thousands. If this would of happen to a country mostly populated by whites, America would of been outraged. But muslims(middle-easterns) are of lesser stature.

People say that Bush lied to us about WMD's. The liberation of Iraq was not just about that. It was about liberating a country that lived in fear. Americans have the biggest ego. They put their own unemployment aboves the lives of thousands of innocent people. When you are poor in America, you are still fat. But when you are poor in Iraq, you die of starvation. Please put your petty egos behind yourself.

You don't understand what Bush is doing. He is FREEING a country. A year ago, in Iraq, if people protested about their country, they were raped,murdered,killed and your family was killed. You would have to see your wife and children raped. Now if you protest, you are listened to and changes will be made.

Damn democracy is a great thing!

If you think Al Gore wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and destroyed Al Qaeda, you're wrong. Completely, 100% wrong.

If you think democracy is guaranteed (or even likely) in Iraq in the next 5 years, you're probalby wrong.

The Clinton administration was prepared to declare war on terrorism in the months before it left office, but they decided not to start a war so soon before a change of leadership.

The Bush administration ignored Al Qaeda until 9/11, though they say that initial discussions on counterterrorism were taking place in early September.

Therefore, one might think that an Al Gore administration could have prevented 9/11. I sure do. I don't promise that it WOULD have, but when you don't spend any time fighting terrorism (like Bush), your chances don't look so good by comparison.

Oh, and freeing Iraq has done nothing to "save" us from anything.

I'm basically in favor of the war in Iraq, but I think that in retrospect that it was unnecessary, poorly planned, and has accomplished few of the initial goals.

What about the long term? I want a stable government in the long term, but I don't want our troops tied up over there long term. They need to be back in Georgia and Texas waiting to spring upon whoever pops up to challenge us next, not camped out nation building in Iraq.

Re: President Bush has saved us all!
 

1. You can't say what would have happened under Gore, that is pure speculation without a logical basis.

2. Shrub pissed-off a good 4/5ths of the world by attacking Iraq without UN approval. Can you say massive drop in international political capital ?

3. I call bullshit on the WMD comment, the invasion of Iraq was 100% about WMD untill we learned that Iraq had none. Then shrub, rummy and colon decided to shift the focus to humanitarian aid - bullshit I say.

4. Bush isn't liberating a country, he is creating a massive, sucking power vaccum where Saddam use to be. Iraq is going to have to toe an amazingly straight-line to keep from becoming an annexation of Turkey/Iran/Saudi or an independent Islamic theocracy.

5. What gives the US the right to invade another country without a pretext ?

6. Why did we invade Iraq when N.K, Rwanda and China all have humanitarian problems ?

Just a note,

Calling the president "Shrub" as well as other name calling really detracts from your arguments, as much as me calling H. Clinton "Hitlery" might.

It is a practice that I strongly discourage on both the left and the right, as it adds nothing to the conversation.

Carry on.

I keep hearing this spin now, but at the time of 9/11 most of the ex-Clinton/Gore people were saying quite the opposite. Dick Morris still says terrorism was job 102 for Bill.

If Clinton did have a plan like this, my guess is he waited until it was 'to late' for him so he could give the problem to the next guy. It would be fairly typical of Bill to pass the buck. No risk to his already shakey legacy.

Ohhhhh Clinton is going to go fight terrorists, after cutting the military budget, handcuffing the CIA with moronic regs, and giving us the humiliation of Somalia, but just you wait, we WAS going to get them, its all Bush's fault! Yea right.

If he wouldn't take Osama when offered because we didn't have 'legal' reason to hold him, what the hell was he going to do? Ask them to confess? Hope they play nice? Go blow up some empty tents?

Clinton was criticised by republicans in congress incessantly for the money he was diverting towards anti-terrorism efforts. Don't say it was job 102 to him. He was perceived and portrayed as a terrorism whacko by congress.

Bill made the plan in direct respons to the USS Cole bombing.

Again, please pick up the book "Against All Enemies : Inside the White House's War on Terror--What Really Happened " By Richard Clarke, Clintons counter-terrorism czar. Bush liked him so much he used him for Cyberspace security.

I agree completely with what both Scipio and nanofever said.

and to:
Bush doesn't CARE about people, he doesn't care about international human rights. Liberating the Iraqis and stopping the torture and murders DID NOT FACTOR into why we went into Iraq.

I have proven that with the way we are acting with Uzbekistan and Equatorial Guinea.
(Do a search on it on this site, you will find plent of information)

And for an update on that sorry nation....

http://www.uzland.uz/2004/february/14/09.htm
Britains ambassador to Uzbek gave a speech criticizing the Uzbek govt over its human rights record.
He was recalled by Britain after the Uzbeks and members of the US government put pressure on Britain to shut him up because the brutal Uzbeks and our administration didn't like what he was saying

So, DON'T. EVER, think you can give Bush the moral high ground and project a bleeding heart for human rights onto his sorry frame.

Re: President Bush has saved us all!
 

Tell that to the Sudanese,liberians, or just about any of the non-white, non-oil, African countries who have been starving for far longer than the Iraqis. And dying in far greater numbers, under far greater tyranny. Shrub cant even pronounce the names of the countries, because he has no interest in them, and therefor you dont either, Please dont question the ethics of an entire poulation, simply because you follow the party line.

Is George Bush the only person in America who could of figured out that Osama was in Afghanistan and started bombing it, I'm fairly sure Al Gore coulf of done that.

If you figure Iraq is a democracy now do you feel the same way about Afghanistan is it a democracy? Is "FREEING" a country the same as occupying it because that is what he is doing. So now the main focus of the war was "liberation" not WMD, then why were WMD mentioned in every single speech, commercial, or anything else put out by this party.

And what happened to the number one suspect the most wanted man in the world Osama, still hanging out in Tora Bora probably. Bush realizes that Saddam is more than likely the only one he will catch and that is why Osama has fallen off the political world.

peace

Yea those wacky republicans in congress didn't want to spend the money on counter-terrorism. Uh huh, we KNOW how republicans hate spending money on defense and national security. Give me a break, my washingmachine spins less.

First off assuming the BBC story about the US trying to force him out is true (ha!) they have no proof and even they only present it as a vague maybe, what is your point? That we have to work with governments which do bad things? Isn't that just what YOU want to do with the U.N.? 2/3rds of those nations are run by dictators of one form or another, yet you want their approval before any action is made? Using this as proof Bush doesn't CARE about people is laughable. What should we do, care, protest, and DO nothing?

The US can only do so much in this world, and we can't save everyone. The US has liberated 50 MILLION people from oppressive regimes in the last 3 years. Thats not to shabby a record. There is a lot of work left to do, if people like you would quit whining and giving our enemies hope that if they keep up resistance just long enough the US will lose its nerve and vote some liberal in which will be all talk and feeling with no action,and allow them free reign again to commit mass murder!

Dick Morris is an ass kissing rat who goes where the power is. After Clinton he went to Bush. He will try to get in good with whoever is in power in 2005 as well. And he will be slandering Bush as much as possible as he ever does to Clinton to get there.

You already know my opinion on what a good, moral nation should act regarding brutal dictatorships.
Karimov isn't just any dictator. He is the absolute most abohrent human in control of a nation. He is slime. Remember what your parents said about the friends you keep.

"If I don't quit whining it will give our enemies hope to keep up their resistance to win?" What the hell kind of comment is that? My "whining" is for us to cut the bastard off at the teat today. To start sanctions against him, today. To begin an internation campagin to shut him off from the rest of the world and fund resistance fighters in the nation today. That is the last thing Karimov wants. Karimov wants Bush to stay in power because he is getting an awesome money and protection deal from him.
We. Are. Already. Allowing. This. Guy. Free. Reign. To. Commit. Mass. Murder.

You know I'm right. Just admit it.
Come into the light. It's nicer here and we don't have that stench of hypocracy that keeps you up at night.

Sigh...

I understand why some parents just go directly to "yell".

Shrub comes from "bushwacked", a book about Mr bushs' tenure as governor of Texas. Very interesting read, almost exactly what he has done to the country as a whole.
I thought it was in common use.....sorry to dissapoint you.

The common disrespect people use toward the man in the Oval Office bothers me as well, but it is in a sense, an inevitable historical legacy, both of Vietnam and Watergate, the omnipresent media - which goes hand in hand with a president's often bubbling attempts at presenting an image, and we come at last to the Clinton and Bush years. So it doesn't surprise me one bit. But do I let folks I know get away with it? No (well, I let my Dad slide), just like I don't let enlisted folks call officers by their first name - Respect the Office, if you can't respect the man.

But it's also politics as usual on an internet forum ;)

Sparhawk, when the interloper in the oval office evinces so little respect for that office, how can anyone else be expected to? Bob Dole I could have respected while I disagreed with. Or Malcom Forbes. Or really anyone who made any effort to pretend that they were doing the job. Not the joker SCOTUS dealt us.

I do understand what you are trying to get at: the king's two bodies and all. I just think there's a point at which the king has so spectacularly failed in his public body, that the office is actually vacant. Time was, you could haul him off to the tower and strike his head off for that, but I am against the death penalty.

I'll respect the office when someone holds it again.

Bush has done more in his first 3.15 years then any president in my lifetime. You might not agree with anything he does, but your hate only makes you look childish, much like the Shrub comments.

I doubt you can quantify "done more" But letting that slide, what he has done has been net negative.

First president since Hoover to oversee a net loss in jobs! That is definetley in his history book summary.

Yeah Bush gave us this guy I suppose. Why does ANYONE with a conscience and desire to have a better country support this President? Especially, when he fills his cabinet with people like this:

Paige Apologizes for Teachers Union Quip

By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer

WASHINGTON - Education Secretary Rod Paige called the nation's largest teachers union a "terrorist organization" Monday, taking on the 2.7-million-member National Education Association early in the presidential election year.

Paige's comments, made to the nation's governors at a private White House meeting, were denounced by union president Reg Weaver as well as prominent Democrats. Paige said he was sorry, and the White House said he was right to say so.

The education secretary's words were "pathetic and they are not a laughing matter," said Weaver, whose union has said it plans to sue the Bush administration over lack of funding for demands included in the "No Child Left Behind" schools law.

Paige said later in an Associated Press interview that his comment was "a bad joke; it was an inappropriate choice of words." President Bush was not present at the time he made the remark.

"As one who grew up on the receiving end of insensitive remarks, I should have chosen my words better," said Paige, the first black education secretary.

Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin said Paige's words were, "The NEA is a terrorist organization."

Paige said he had made clear to the governors that he was referring to the Washington-based union organization, not the teachers it represents.

Weaver responded, "We are the teachers, there is no distinction."

Paige's Education Department is working to enforce a law that amounts to the biggest change in federal education policy in a generation. He has made no attempt to hide his frustration with the NEA, which has long supported Democratic presidential candidates.

Asked if he was apologizing, Paige said: "Well, I'm saying that I'm sorry I said it, yeah." In a statement released to the media, Paige said he chose the wrong words to describe "the obstructionist scare tactics" of NEA lobbyists.

Said White House spokesman Scott McClellan: "The comment was inappropriate and the secretary recognized it was inappropriate and quickly apologized."

Terry McAuliffe, chairman of the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), put it in stronger terms, accusing Paige of resorting "to the most vile and disgusting form of hate speech, comparing those who teach America's children to terrorists."

Education has been a top issue for the governors, who have sought more flexibility from the administration on Bush's "No Child Left Behind" law, which seeks to improve school performance in part by allowing parents to move their children from poorly performing schools.

Democrats have said Bush has failed to fully fund the law, giving the states greater burdens but not the resources to handle them. The union backs the intent of the law but says many of its provisions must be changed.

The NEA spends roughly $1 million a year lobbying in Washington. It is also a big political donor, mostly to Democrats.

In the last presidential election cycle, 1999-2000, NEA and its political action committee donated $3.1 million to federal candidates and national party committees, with about $9 of every $10 going to Democrats. At that time, national party committees were allowed to raise union donations, part of the so-called soft money that they are now barred from accepting.

Missouri Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, said Paige's remarks startled the governors, who met for nearly two hours with Bush and several Cabinet officials.

"He is, I guess, very concerned about anybody that questions what the president is doing," Holden said.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said, "Somebody asked him about the NEA's role and he offered his perspective on it."

Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, a Democrat, said the comments were made in the context of "we can't be supportive of the status quo and they're the status quo. But whatever the context, it is inappropriate — I know he wasn't calling teachers terrorists — but to even suggest that the organization they belong to was a terrorist organization is uncalled for."

Paige, in an interview, talked at length about his agency's efforts to work with states over their concerns with the law. He said meetings with state leaders have erased misunderstandings and a tone of confrontation.

But he said some opposition to the law has been stirred by at least three groups that are "hard nosed, highly financed and well organized." Asked to name the groups other than the NEA, Paige declined, saying: "I've already got into deep water with that one, haven't I?"

The governors were in Washington for four days of discussions at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association, though the usual effort to build consensus was marked by partisan politics that Democrats said couldn't be avoided.

In brief public comments, Bush told the governors that rising political tensions of an election year won't stop him from working closely with them.

"I fully understand it's going to be the year of the sharp elbow and the quick tongue," Bush said. "But surely we can shuffle that aside sometimes and focus on our people."

___

AP Education Writer Ben Feller and AP Political Writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...achers_union_5

Not good at this link thingy so please forgive me.

How quick this administration is to throw out who is a terrorist group.

And the right think it's ok to label ANYONE that might disagree with them, yet they get mad if you label them.

They can call names intensify hate but if the LEFT asks legitimate questions the RIGHT persecutes and spews hatred.

Bullies, schoolyard bullies.

Just proves to me that they CANNOT HONESTLY DEBATE the issues without attacking and trying to destroy. Hopefully, the people will elect new people this time around so the destructive politics can get back into some form of control.

I *think* this may be posted because of earlier comments I made, so if it's not, my appologies.


Tilted Politics is a place to discuss politics, not to flame, troll or otherwise bait the "other" side.

My experience with using cute nick names for politicians/people (Hitlery, Shrub, Chimp, Klinton, etc.) you don't like is:

1) it doesn't advance the conversation
2) it makes people less likely to listen

Therefore it is discouraged.

Note, I said discouraged, not banned. (If such name calling makes it difficult to maintain ordered discussion here, then staff may reconsider.)


So by all means, feel free to be angry at Bush, Rove, whoever. Post stories, commentaries etc. But please, if you can't add to the conversation in meaningful ways without name calling, then you really need to take a step back.*


*This whole post really can apply to anyone who feels their temper getting the best of them while in "Politics".

Sparhawk is right on the money. I did not vote for President Bush, but he is still my president. I think a great deal more could be discussed in campaigns and on sites like this if we remembered to respect the office and talk about the details. I am comfortable saying that I think that Mr. Bush has made some very poor decision on the environment and that I do not believe he is being entirely honest in regards to the invasion of Iraq, but my statements loose their impact if I resort to name calling.

and as far as:

Ustwo, how old are you? Even if you think that Bush has acomplished more than Clinton and his father, Reagan did a whole hell of a lot in his eight years. (also, does calling Reagan "The Gipper" count as a slam?)

I don't think so :D

I see a lot of talk about "respecting the office" yet no talk of just plain old "respect". It really bothers me that people can, so non-challantly and with little to no forethought, throw out comments about people they've never met and know little about.

Calling the President shrub or an idiot is ridiculous. These insults have no place in ANY rational conversation. I guess at some point it became acceptable to personally attack people based on their politics but it will never mean that it's right.

But it was ok for the Right to call Clinton names and hound him for an affair?

That was respect for the office wasn't it?

In My Opinion, there is nothing wrong with calling an elected official names. It has happened throughout the history of this country and will for the rest of time. It is better for people to vent in that way then than to suppress the ideas and voices of them.

But after we make an ammendment on "WHAT MARRIAGE IS", we'll pass an ammendment forbidding the name-calling of our president..... but only if he is a man of great moral character.

Lebell,

No that post was just in response to the article posting I did above it.

I am very outraged that ANY politician calls the NEA a "terroristic group" and thinks it's funny. I'm sorry but I find no humor in a cabinet member calling a legitimate group terroristic, in this day and age.

If a Dem. during Clinton, (say Robert Reich) had called the NRA a group of Nazi-istic thugs, do you not think there would have been an outcry for his job within hours?

I just truly get upset over this double standard. The GOP during Clinton could call him anything, and today, Bush's people can say and do whatever they damn well want but someone says something about them, well, then that person is humiliated, thier name savaged and they get treated as if they are unpatriotic treasonists out to destroy the country.

To me, my dad always said if you have to resort to name calling you lose the debate. But today, you almost have to name call because noone debates issues anymore civilly. Noone seems to respect that someone has a different view.

We are all so wrapped up in taking sides that the true issues are being forgotten and when someone does want to talk issues they are treated like imbiciles that have no idea what they are talking about. It's both GOP and the DEMs that are guilty. and it has to stop.

I would like, at this point to publicly apologize for using the presidential slander from the above posts. It was never my intent to highjack this thread with the use of a popular Texas nickname for the former governor of that state.
My personal interpretation of the skills, and intellect of Mr. Bush have been cheapened by the use of name calling, and this I regret.
Please continue the debate as to how he has saved us all, and forget the mention of slanderous names.

Bush has certainly done a lot in his first years in office, but that doesn't mean any of it is good for us as common citizens. I contend that he has done more damage to the principles that I belive define what the American democratic experiment stands for.

I believe in an America that tells it's citizens that they can do anything, not in an America that tells them they can't. We should seek more freedom, and not to restrict anyone's choices. I am deeply disturbed by this morning's news of Bush backing an ammendment to ban gay marriage. After centuries of working to undo racism and discrimination in our nation's highest law, that conservatives seek to persecute anyone based on beliefs that do not pose any physical harm to anyone is truly unamerican.

This administration has done more to restrict personal and civil liberties than any other in modern history. They have done it in the name of patriotism, which disgusts me. They have gotten away with it by exploiting our deepest fears, and the only people who have benefited are the corporations that have contributed to the Bush campaign. American taxpayers bought the bombs, and we're footing the entire bill for the reconstruction and we are in more danger now than we have ever been. It infuriates me that Americans (who are so pathetic in their knowledge of world geography that 80% of our school children don't even know that the Tigris is a river, much less where it is) would seek to dictate terms of existence to any culture at gunpoint because we do it better than they do.

The America of 8 years ago was a role model to the world of an open economy and free mindset that was emulated by western nations. today those nations fear us instead of respect us because our foreign policy is that of a bully instead of a champion.

Now before you go slamming me with knee jerk democrat slurs, let me say right up front that I like republicans. I like republicans who stand for small government and do not seek to legislate morality. I like republicans that belive in the concept of the republic and let state governments operate in confederation with the federal government. When you start thinking about what the republican party is supposed to stand for, and then you see what the republican party is really standing for, all you registered repubicans out there should really questioning your party hard. Today's republicans aren't representing the true ideology of the party in any sense. They are representing the ideology of facist oligarchy, and the Bush dynasty is evidence of a modified form of hereditary assumption of power. That's right, folks... they are actively recreating the exact form of government that we revolted against more than 200 years ago. And without appropriate checks and balances from the other two branches of government, they disturbingly begin to resemble the regimes we have helped to dismantle in the past 50 years.

To say that the democrats will not defend the nation is ridiculous. Charles Krautheimer, a noted conservative columnist who actually thinks and reasons rather than march in lock step with the PR machine like so many other pundits, beautifully explains away this falicy: Everyone believes in use of force for self defense - liberal, conservative, democrat or republican. Liberals, however, balk at any armed intervention that seeks to promote the national interest because they equate the national interest with the self interest of the administration that is in power. They do however support armed intervention for humanitarian reaons, which explains the many military actions of the Clinton administration. Liberals are tolerant of forms of government other than american democracy, but conservatives find them a threat and seek to supplant regimes with those they can control.

Consider all of this in light of the War on Terror, which like the war on drugs is really only a war on American taxpayers. It was sold to us as critical for our national defense, and when that turned out to be untrue, it was recouched as a humanitarian intervention. But it was too late to sway anyone but the most fanatical supporters of the administration.

And why do those people support the administration? Because your taxes went down? Unless you make in the neighborhood of $250,000 a year, your taxes did not go down, and if you think they did, you are not paying attention to the details. Your taxes have been restructured, and the middle class is actually shouldering more burden than ever and getting less service for their money. Where are all those tax dollars going? Into non competitive contracts for companies that are mired in the CEO and tax accounting scandals.

Wake up America! Your government is bigger! You are less secure! You have less liberty! We are putting a debt burden on our children that would make credit card companies like MBNA salivate (they were a major campaign donor to Bush, btw).

I have to end this rant, but I'm going to do it with this quote, which I hope you will ponder:

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

It was said by Hermann Goering during his trial at Nuremberg. The angriest person is the one who suddenly realizes that they have been taken advantage of. If you are a rebublican and you aren't pissed as hell, you have no idea of what a republican really is.

That was... really good giblingus. Bravo.

I too have much respect for true conservatives like Dick Armey, though I disgree with him on much he works towards the national interest and americas freedom.

I fear any one political party or ideology controlling this government. Noone should have the trifecta. Noone should have real control over more than one full branch of government. Not Democrats, not Republicans. The Supreme Court SHOULD be non-partisan but I see too much in the way of ideology there. You get problems where "dynasties" are possible

I'll leave you with a 'better' Goering quote.

Oh, ok :)

Anyway, the NRA regularly gets called names like that, but I would have to look to see if any high cabinet officials do it.

I do know that high level senators regularly engage in such hyperbole.

I think the last part of what you said is dead on correct.

Since everyone likes statistics, here's the President's legacy:

3,000,000: Since George W. Bush took office, America has lost 3 million jobs.

1,000,000: One million jobs have been outsourced since President Bush took office.

50% Higher: Health care costs have increased 50 percent since 2001 when Bush took office.

33% Higher: Unemployment has increased 33 percent since Bush took office.

$35,000: Bush is worried about death taxes for people making tens of millions of dollars -- but he has saddled every child born into this country with a $35,000 birth tax.

[b]$10,368[b/]: American families will pay $10,368 in interest on the debt by 2014.

http://www.bls.gov

One more stat for ya'

91- The estimated I.Q of George W. Bush
The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points :


147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald Ford (R)
175 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald Reagan (R)
099 George HW Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
091 George W. Bush (R)

This man has taken us to war with a country that has no WMD's, no ties to al-queda and that his father funded. He has scared the be-jesus (sp) out of the american people. he told me and millions of other people that going to war with a country is the right thing to do. He has today inforced the fact that gays shouldn't get married. He has made it so a single middle income person like myself has to pay taxes thru the ying-yang. More people have lost jobs in this country since, i think hoover was in office. My health care is thru the roof, and spiralling completely out of control. name one friggin reason why i or anyone should vote him back into office again. why should i feel that this man had done anything for me?

mr b

Laugh, thats such a crock.

Hehe I'll be happy to discuss your numbers, but do you have a source better then the homepage of the US dept of labor and statistics? Obviously you didn't do research on that page but got this off some other site and then put a link up to the dept website to make it look good (I'm sure they did too). Since the numbers you gave are purposefully misleading I will assume it was some left wing website you took those from. It would help if we knew which one it was.

That's not really a statistic there, guy

yeah as much as i dis-like our US president, Sparhawk has a point. I know usTwo, i'm just spouting off info again, but this one has a point:


http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/lovenstein.html
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/presiq.htm
mr b

Bingo - ya know, if you put a tenth of the cynicism you show toward everything else, and pointed it at this administration, you'd be one of the many very pissed off Republicans I know.

Ustwo, the stats that Sparhawk put out are basically on target, they can be corroborated at any number of sources including US government reports and are reported through major media, although the acutal numbers fluctuate from month to month. If anything, they are higher than what he supplies.

(a plea: please do not throw out that straw man liberal news media argument. it is patently untrue. the major news media companies are all publicly traded and are very conservative businesses driven by advertising revenue that is dependent on even more conservative businesses. the parent companies of nbc and cbs are giant defense contractors, and ALL media businesses stand to benefit from the relaxing of FCC ownership rules that are being pushed by the administration. a lexis nexis search of endorsement editorials in the past election will show that the marjority of daily papers backed Bush. the only real left wing news media that adhere to real journalistic ethics and principles in this country are the magazines Mother Jones and The Nation and the radio pacifica network. what is commonly called the left wing is actually quite moderate, and the right wing is now much farther to the right than it was 12 or 16 years ago. /end plea)

the statistic that is commonly left out is the one about the economic recovery via tax relief and consumer spending is acutally being financed on credit cards. i first heard it reported yesterday by radio pacifica and the subsequent analysis was done by an economic advisor from the nixon administration (name escapes me, but you'd have to agree that he's pretty conservative, right?). the tax relief was said to be a good short term policy for minor economic stimulus, but the real jump in consumer spending (66% of the total economy for those of you scoring at home) has been financed by credit, and is still unpaid. coupled with continued tax cuts, we will be looking at a devestating crash, massive interest rate hikes, and a whole slew of other problems if we keep this up for four more years.

greenspan echoed this mildly in his last address to the senate finance commitee, which brought the inside the beltway rumors out again that bush wants to axe him because he doesn't play ball with the party line. kind of like paul oneil, but greenspan has such public status that if he was to be fired, bush would lose complete support of voters who are liberal minded but fiscally conservative.

what really pisses me off is that we are deindustrializing our nation and sending those jobs to a COMMUNIST DICTATORSHIP. wtf? that is good for the national defense? that is patriotic?

Re: President Bush has saved us all!
 

Wow, such nobility on behalf of Bush and Company.

Now, what about Uzbekistan?

Who you ask????

Well, see, they have this whacko dictator who runs the place and he makes Saddam Hussein look like Mother Theresa.

Yet the bastion of international morality, the good ole US of A backs him to the hilt, just like they used to with Uncle Saddam till he lifted his leg.

http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywo...stan/slow.html

So how come this guy is a good dictator and Saddam was a bad dictator??????????

If Saddam never invaded Kuwait in 91, he would still be shaking hands with Rumsfeld, you can bet on that.

Guess we were both on the same track, when i quoted, I had not read your post.

Cheers

I totally agree with this.

As a "damned foreigner" I can atest to the overall general dis-like of George W Bush by 85% of my countrymen (Recent McLean's magazine article). And that is putting it mildly. Everyone hopes he looses. (It's funny cause everyone i know pretty much thought Clinton was a pretty good guy. So, it's not an American thing, it's a Bush thing.)

Never has a US president faired so poorly in any Canadian popular opinion poll. Never. Now i know some of you are saying, "Well who gives a fuck what Canada or any other country thinks of Bush" Well, it does matter believe it or not, and since the USA is so important in the world, it has an impact on other countries.

You have to ask yourself why an American president would be so completely dispised all over the world? There must be something there.

Sadly, there are many Americans who honestly do not give a damn what any other country thinks. In their minds, a map of the world is dominated by the United States while the remainder of the globe is plugged into a small geographical area the size of the Azores.

This places the U.S. in a sort of Catch 22. We are in this position because we don't give a damn what any other nation thinks. Yet we can't figure out why so many nations are afraid of or despise us. The common - and erroneous - reaction is that these nations are jealous of us, thus perpetuating the opinion that Americans are arrogant, ego-centric bastards. We do not respect our allies, we tolerate them.

well im not sure what to think, as far as ive read all the facts, bush was somewhat responsible for 9/11.

clinton arranged a deal with the saudis worth billions, for something. cant remember. anyway. bush doesnt like the saudis, and some time during sep 01 the deal worth billions was cancelled. then 15 or so saudis along with a few others, crash planes into buildings.

But even if im wrong, you can never say 9/11 would have happened.

and another thing, the clinton admin gave the bush admin a massive report on terrorist, namely bin laden. the report basically stated that they were planning massive attacks, action needed immediately. but bush ignored it completely.

It's easy. Bush is doing what he feels is best for America and it's interests. Thats all he is responsible to do, the world be damned. Just because Bush's actions don't fit in with the rest of the world's agenda doesn't make him wrong, especially since all everyone else is trying to do is check our power.

^dude, with an attitude like that, are you surprised that some other citizens of the world might feel threatened? that's not exactly how we teach our children to play to nice and share with others, is it?

The world is an ugly ugly place.

Like I really care. The US isn't a great big piggy bank for everyone to take money out of. Suddenly we worry about our own interests just like the rest of the world does and we are the bad guys? France has been a bitch since we liberated them in '44, Germany has been whining since the 80's, China would do anything to make us weaker, and Russia still wants to pretend its a major player. Canada can't even afford its armed forces anymore and do they thank us since they don't NEED them because of the US? No they whine like every other quasi-socialist nation without the guts or the strength to do anything themselves.

Wait.. you're own interests??.. I thought Iraq was a human rights issue... And before you call yourself the "big piggy bank' check how much money goes back AND FORTH across the Canadian American border in trade


Hate hate hate.. If you're going to use comments like that, at least say why.. Why do you feel France has been a bitch since (and catch my carefull wording, you got into the war late, and you werent the only ones there) the ALLIES liberated them. How is China weakening you? And Im sorry to be the one to tell you, but Russia has a population of approx 144,978,573 and a GDP of $1,270,000,000,000 - That may not be as much as "Mother US", but its in the top ten

No, we dont have to thank you.. You didnt do anything! We don't need a war machine because we don't go off and invade people.. We don't need a war machine because our last great enemy (the USSR) has evolved into Russia and no longer points death at our faces.. And we don't do anything about you because the current United States government is like a horrible flat-mate in University.. You're so shocked at what they are capable of, you just can't think of something proper to say
[/QUOTE]

Another note.. Why do some ill informed Americans call Canada socialist? It is a "confederation with parliamentary democracy".. Just because we have a viable health care system and a social net??

I thought those were good things for a nation to work towards..

this type of attitude is why we are a target of terrorism. plain and simple. i find it threatening, and i enjoy the protection and freedom afforded me by my status as a citizen of the united states. it is not hard to see how any other culture - particularly a non western one - would believe the only way to reason with a brute is by brute force.

last time i checked, pissing off the world is not in our best interests. do it enough, and other countries could easily back out of trade agreements, hurting us financially, or attack us. btw, has anyone else noticed how whenever a mad cow was found in briton, or with the bird flu now, that we cut off getting those from that country, but when we found a cow with it here in america, and that asian country (vietnam? thailand? don't remember) stopped buying it from us, we bitched and moaned? hehe... that was funny.

Amen.

No, we are the target of terrorism because we represent freedom and prosperity which is threatening to people who's attitudes haven't changed since 550 A.D. If you will recall the first world trade center attack was under Clinton, and Clinton was the worlds as kisser. If you want to show weakness to our enemies, you do that, and we can have more embassy bombings, and Somalia’s, and WTC like attacks.

I just pray to god (which is hard as an atheist) that people like you NEVER EVER EVER get to make important decisions again about national security. I still remember watching people jump 80+ stories to their deaths on Sept 11, it will stay with me until the day I die, and that was not caused by a policy of strength but one of weakness and not wanting to offend anyone.

The World needs us more then we need them. How bad do you think those other countries would be hurting if they broke off trade agreements with us? I'd say easily x10 fold what we were experiecing. Notice how much other countries economies were struggling under our recession.

So the US can "stand alone" and doesnt need anyone else??

Wait... If you don't need anyone else, how can you make up a shortfall of 136 BILLION US$??

source - Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/transnewsrelease.htm

Canada is a great country and neighbor for the US. Canada PROVED that they were there in 1979 when their embassy and people put thier lives on the line to help some of ours escape in Iran. AND CANADA HAS NEVER NEVER ASKED US FOR ANYTHING!!!

Canada has proven time after time that they are quite possibly the best ally we have (maybe the UK is more vocal but Canada has always been there). And yet, there are those here in the US that want to treat Canada like our bald headed stepson.

Canada can't help that it runs more efficiently than the U.S., has better healthcare and is cleaner and better educated. Canada can't help that they elect officials that prefer peace and care more about the people than big business.

Make no mistake, the US takes more from the world than it gives. To think that you somehow hold an impenetrable higher ground than everyone else is quite foolish.

Blaming terrorism on hating freedom, etc is such a cop-out because many Americans don't want to deal with the real reasons. That being the US foreign policy that has helped continue the sorry state that millions upon millions of people around the world live in. Prosperity at the explicit expense of someone else is just begging for retaliation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


SLM3

this view is more than arrogant, it is pejorative and, surprisingly, racist. you don't represent any form of freedom if your stance is this. really, it seems like you would rather revoke the liberty of anyone who does not agree with you. tolerance and freedom go hand in hand, you cannot divorce them. tolerance is a quality of true strength, as are discipline, patience and understanding. pushing other people around is a sign of weakness. again, these are playground rules. kid stuff.

its natural to be angry about the attacks on the world trade center. i think everyone was, and is, and no one will ever forget. that's not the point, and we don't need to continually evoke the event to perpetuate this mistaken belief that if someone doesn't unquestioningly march the line that they are a liberal commie pinko who doesn't support the troops and is soft on the national defense, blah blah blah. it is not rational, and no matter how many times it is said and how loudly it said, it doesn't become any more true.

you seem consumed with hatred, both of liberals and of cultures outside your own. i find this a curiously common trait in others who espouse this slate of views. basic psychology links abject hatred to fear and insecurity. these qualities tend to make one highly susceptible to peer pressure, group think, and other forms of manipulation. that concerns me when i think about the current conservative movement. bleeding heart liberals have their own slew of problems, of course, but they are too disperate in their views to fall to pack mentality.

Now then, that is out of my system. As for USTWO's remarks......


How can you sit there and talk about how all these other countries want to bring us down, and then turn around and support them by giving them our jobs and having trade deficits with them? It makes no sense. If China as you say will do anything to weaken us, then why are we buying ANYTHING from them?

Ah..... cheaper labor and prices. So then you would rather allow China to have sweatshops and pay thier workers pennies while ours starve, so that you may save a buck or two? Then you can sit and spew hatred and how that country wants to weaken us. Makes sense to me.

As for some of these other self righteous US posters........ HOW DARE YOU SAY THEY NEED US MORE THEN WE NEED THEM. Have you no shame? WE fucking exploit thier kids for our tennis shoes and clothing, we take whatever we fucking want from them and then if they so much as say 1 bad thing towards us you are over here telling them how well we treat them?

YOU ARE WHY AMERICANS HAVE A BAD NAME AND SO MANY OTHERS HATE US. YOU DISGRACE THE COUNTRY I LOVE.

Oh get real. You want those millions and millions to do better, then export more capitalism and freedom. They should be more like the US. Everyone craves freedom which is why so many come here to live. Trying to blame the US for the worlds poverty is assinine.

Exactly right.

i believe it was bill mahr who said that if hating our freedom is the reason why the "terrorists" hate america, that must be why the rest of america hates california... because they are jealous of the freedom. :p

the funny thing is that the conservatives who use that argument ignore the irony that the self same reasoning is the justification for their hatred of liberals.

it would be great if that is what we actually did, but we don't.

really what our businesses do is take advantage of totalitarian states who oppress their populace, which in turn results in cheap labor who live in repressed markets that keep costs of living low. when the economy of the nation matures to a degree that those markets begin to rise, businesses have been moving again to more repressed markets. an example of this happening right now with wal-mart relocating their signature production line manufacturing to indonesia, because china is offering a less attractive margin. sadly, the environmental impact of the transportation in that distribution channel is not lessened.

(slightly off topic, but i must put this out whenever i can. wal-mart is destroying america, one low price at a time. not only do they drive small businesses under and destroy small towns, as one company they represent a full 10% of the ENTIRE national trade deficit. shocking.)

The point of the trade between two major nations is to make each others dependency on each so necessary that war is out of the picture. Look at Europe's dynamic with the EU.

Your point is? Fair, balanced trade does promote healthy relations between countries and yes, it it a necessity to have.

But by paying these countries workers pennies on the dollar so that companies like NIKE, Wal-Mart, and so on, can make millions is not fair and balanced trade. It IS EXPLOITATION AND PROMOTES HATRED. Don't tell me how that is a "free Market" because it doesn't even relate to a free market.

The only way this is a fair and balanced trade and free market is if workers would be paid the same and had the same rights and laws in Malayasia to make shoes as they would be in the U.S., otherwise pure and simple it is exploitation. Also the nations import taxes would be equal to the other. Which we don't have either as China and Japan tax our steel out of competition with thiers, yet we have little taxes on thier.

You know how to get out of taxing the US citizen so much? Tax corporations and countries imports more....... maybe the same rate they tax out goods going into thier countries would be a good starting point. Of course that's too "liberal and leftist and isolationistic thinking". The reason why that doesn't come into play is corporations would then start losing thier profit margins and the GOP (along with alot of DEMS) would lose thier campaign funding.

This is so wrong on so many fundamental levels I don't know where to start.

So I'll start with the first part about the
If the cost of labor would be the same, then there would be no point in having other countries make the goods. As such these countries, who mostly have people making pennies PERIOD, would have less jobs and less income. They would suffer. Likewise the cost of the goods would go up, the consumer would suffer and have a lower standard of living.

And since its very late and I'm very tired and need to sleep, lets jump to the end.

Corporations are not job creating machines of the world. They exsist to make a profit and only will succeed if they make a profit. Who the hell wants to invest in a company that doesn't make a profit? Why build a new industry if it can't make a profit since its taxed away? Why bother when you can sit at home on the dole? Who the hell do you think makes the global economy work? Sure tax away the profit, and you might as well make them state owned since before long they won't function on their own. Mmmmmm state owned corporations, where have I smelt that stench before...

Well this was an interesting discussion, but unfortunatly I think we're not getting anywhere. One dogma versus another dogma...

I fear that there will never be a time when liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, here can ever have a balanced "active listening conversation".. perhaps Im wrong though

but it is fun to muck in the debate..

Ustwo, I may disagree with you on almost all issues, I may hate what you stand for, but I certainly do respect the strength of your convictions, thank you for the debate

My turn at rebuttal here.

Exactly my point. If the cost of doing business is the same our industry will stay here.

How is paying the workers of those countries pennies on the dollar "helping them"? They still live in poverty. They still have nothing. Then of course there are the child sweatshops that don't even pay that much and the work camps that pay less than that. How is that "helping them." They can't even afford the product they are making. Hell they can't afford what you take for granted, decent housing and can barely afford food.

Sure thier politicians are well off because our companies bribe them. And by your statement alone you show that price is all you care about. You don't give a damn about those workers. And yet you expect, no demand, that they bow down and kiss your feet? And you wonder why they hate the US.

But this is liberal bias.

Excuese me, corporations are not in the business to make jobs? WHERE THE FUCK THEN ARE THE JOBS SUPPOSE TO COME FROM?

I see so fuck the people who make our goods, yet, who can't afford to buy our goods. Profit profit profit.

You missed my point on that but that's ok the point you made reaffirms my belief that the right only care about themselves and fuck everyone else.

My point was not to tax our own but to tax those that tax our products entering thier countries. Example: China and Japan tax our steel to prices that there is no way to compete. YET, those same countries ship thier inferior steel over here at cut throat prices, and we tax them pennies compared to what they tax us.

Now is that healthy for us? NO

Is thier steel industry losing money? YES, BUT Japan and China subsidize that industry.

WHY EVER WOULD THEY DO THAT? Because once they destroy what's left of our steel industry they can then name thier prices and we will have to pay it. AND of course USTWO you, yourself, have posted how China wants to weaken us. Yet you never did answer me when I asked why if a country wants to weaken you would you have a TRADE DEFICIT with that country.

That sounds like fair and balanced trading doesn't it? That sounds like we are putting our people first over corporate greed.
Hmmmm and we need steel for our planes and ships and tanks and so on for our military.

Now if we have no steel industry, (and trust me living in Northeast Ohio, I know what's left and how fast it is dying, I see the effects everyday), how do we get the steel for new military needs? I'm sure you have a feasible answer to that.

I just don't understand this thinking. When a country has no industry, that country becomes DEPENDANT on the whims and demands of those that do have the industry. That was one reason we were so powerful.

Aw well, USTWO, you continue to live in your world where all other countries should be thanking us for giving them our industry and defending the rich who will leave this country for another the second they have dried up our resources here.

I'll be here in the real world trying to figure out how my children and thier children are going to survive the depression and financial ruin our country is headed for.

the US doesn't want allies or freinds, they want lapdogs like the UK who say "yes" to everything.

So if they agree with us, they are a lapdog.

Wonderful logic.

Well, we know that if they disagree with us they hate our freedom. Or is that an oversimplification too?

No, I'm sure France and Germany love freedom, but they love money more.

And of course, you think we base our policy on something other than the bottom line. Guess we should have our cake, and eat it too. We are after all bigger than everyone else, why not use power to our advantage and blow everyone else off, wait we already do that.......great results too.

*hangs head in shame*

Your point besides another head hanger was?

There are many examples where the bottom line had nothing to do with our policy. Lybia, Cuba, and Kosovo come to mind right away.

If it was all about the money we would have normalized relations with Iraq a decade ago and sold them US military hardware so they wouldn't have had to use that French, Russian, and Chinese crap ;)

In that case we should make them honorary american businessmen.;)

but those examples were ALL about money. it is always about money, or more accurately assets.

war is a means to deprive a state of its physical and human assets by destroying them or it is waged to conquer those assets for the use and benefit of the aggressor state.

without resorting to armed conflict, states use embargoes, sanctions and other economic and trade policies to try to influence other states that are not in line with their own principles. it is a form of aggressive political tactics. we ransom nations, outspend them, or bribe them in some form or another to get them to bend to our will.

our oil embargo to japan is cited as the main reason for the attack on pearl harbor. many have suggested that the oil ties in the bush family (munitions too) are seen as threatening to the middle east, and therefore motivated pre-emptive terrorist action. this is a perfectly rational hypothesis that merits further testing. states have defended their physical resources with force throughout history. it makes much more sense than "they hate us because we are free." there are always economic bases for even religious wars.

the cold war is famously referred to as a spending war or poker game where the US simply out spent the USSR. nations like north korea deprive their citizens of basic lifestuffs in order to channel their resources into arms building. these are examples of economic policy war that are always quickly drawn from the conservative bandolier.

your arguments are conflicting more frequently as this thread continues. your position is weakening, you must realize that such hypocracy cannot stand up to the scrutiny of even your own standards.

wow, dude, calm!
the reason that america is such a large terrorist threat is not because it's the 'home of the free' or other cliche'd crap like that, but because quite simply, it's a fat bumbling git with a gun who thinks that because it's new and has nukes, it doesn't need tact, respect or concern for everything else outside it's own airspace.
yes, thats a little harsh perhaps, but the reasoning is sound. america is targeted because it makes itself a target.

for instance the current situation in iraq:
more americans have been killed than any other nationals, not because they're from the land of the free and prosperous, but because you average american solider is a gung-ho 19 year old with no combat experience shooting everything that gets in his way, british troops or otherwise.
two comparisons are the americans and british, both dragged in by completly stupid leaders. the british are on the streets making friends with the locals, showing they're to be trusted, and generally don't get shot at too much, proving they stay out of the way of the USAF.
the americans on the other hand shoot first, shoot a bit more later, then wonder why everyone hates them.
for those yanks who can't see why the rest of the world seems to hate them it's because of exactly that.
a-terrorism: try living in london 20 years ago, saying goodbye to your kids before you left for work not knowing if the IRA would detonate a bomb in your office. same with spain now, under threat of a large and very organised terrorist group.
b-attitude: prancing around the globe like your the king of the world doesn't give you a very good image. yes, my views are somewhat skewed by the americans bombing the hell out of our boys in iraq, but still, try a little tact and politeness, goes a lot further than saying god has given you a vision.
c-freedom fries: need i say more?

sorry to the yanks who this doesn't apply to, but the rest, jeez, wake up for frick's sake!

so how does cuba have to do with anything. what has the US done to cuba, it hasnt freed the repressed people, it hasnt done jack except make stupid embargos where the rest of the world trades freely with it.

kososvo wasnt the US's idea either, it was NATO's, so the US cant go off and say we helped these people out of the goodness of our hearts. cause it wasnt your idea to do it.

"average american solider is a gung-ho 19 year old with no combat experience shooting everything that gets in his way, british troops or otherwise."

What in God's name has brought you to that conclusion? These boys are not extras from 'Apocalypse Now,' they are highly trained warriors, both in combat and in the Laws of Armed Conflict. They do not intentionally kill civilians or friendlies*, and saying otherwise is an insult, pure and simple.

I'll let others address the rest of your post...


*must make allowance for the occasional, statistically inevitable whackjob

taking a pass on stevie667's inflamatory post. you're not making any case with that kind of talk, man. breathe.

but, sparhawk, the men and women who are stationed presently in iraq are not all highly trained warriors in either combat or the laws of armed conflict (whatever those might be), a great deal of the occupying force are national guard units who are completely unprepared for what is going on and whose tours of duty have been extended way too long. last word i got from baghdad (this week) was that new weekend warriors rotating in from stateside not only didn't know that they should load their weapons when they went on patrol, they had a hard time actually doing it.

they are not boys, they are men and women. the average age of the soldier in baghdad is late 20s. most noncoms are in their 30s. these are fathers and mothers who have jobs back in the states and signed up for the extra money guard duty offered.

the state governors were in dc this past week, as commanders in chief of their respective guards, they are starting to get a bit miffed about how their resources are being abused.

also, during the fight to take iraq, friendly fire killed more troops than did enemy fire. u.s. troops began racking up casualties from enemy action after the shipboard declaration of "mission accomplished."

YOUR CONDUCT UNDER THE LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT

"The laws of armed conflict tell you what you can and cannot do in combat situations. With the training you receive, you will have the necessary discipline to do the right thing. But if you do not learn how to conduct yourself in combat, you will be punished for mistakes."

I used "boys" not in a pejorative way like the person I was quoting, but in the general "our boys" sense. I am curious as to where you got your stats on the average ages, as well as the friendly fire rates, which according to this site are inaccurate.

i can tell you now off the top of my head american troops killed:
2 british tornado pilots on their landing run
several british troops (including one translator) on at least two different bombing runs on british convoys, one of which contained american units as well.
the crew of an armourd unit
and those are just off the top of my head. now, one of those incidents i could take as just a simple fact of war, mistakes happen. you'd think that US commanders would say 'oh, we've had a few mistaken ID's, check your targets for, you know, clearly marked coalition symbols before attacking' and it'd all be ok. but doesn't look like it does it?
and what really ticks me off, as far as i know, none of those attackers got any kind of disciplinery action beyond the standard slap on the wrist.

as for ages, most are under 25, and not proffesional troops (army regulars, not TA or national guards) in both british and american units. you can't dispute that.

But, the US can't afford it's military either mon ami.

Only thing is, you guys haven't figured that out yet.

But you will, trust me, you will.

Oh really?

So the US of A is self sufficient with respect to its energy needs then I guess.

HA, without the rest of the world, you would be paying 20 bucks a gallon, have half the natural gas you have now.

Have fun freezing to death in the dark.

I grew up thinking that the National Guard didn't leave our borders, except to patrol territories, like Guam.

I thought, and so did as many friends as I can remember from years ago, that the professional military were the ones to go conduct wars.

I remember that I had an impression that the National Guard was a pretty safe side occupation--a place to get some health benefits, some fun training, and extra money. This isn't to say that anyone I knew joined the Guards because they were lazy, they just believed that they could serve their country by doing limited risk duty that was still important to the country--having people ready at home in case of an attack. I don't think my generation ever conceived that we would use our backup (resisting a domestic attack) military as an invading force, and we also didn't think anyone would ever invade us.

uhhh what are you talking about guy who opened the post? the whole point is that bush lied to us about why he wasted billions of dollars on the war, kind of like clinton did. but isnt it kind of odd that people were ready to give clinton the axe, while those same people couldn't care less what bush says to us? another thing, gore probably wouldve waited to get that thing called international support before he invaded a country. yeah bush is really our savior.

interesting read on the laws of armed conflict. thanks for the link. war crimes are a curious social construct indeed.

the lunaville stats are accurate to my knowledge. apologies for being misleading. i was thinking of may in particular when i posted, but wasn't looking at any charts at the time. i'll be more careful next time, it's good to see people are thinking hard about this and checking up on the facts. thanks for keeping us honest and accurate.

my source for the age info is private conversation with a pentagon reporter. we were talking about the average age of the enlisted infantryman (which is 19, i believe by the offical DOD proclamation) as we discussed a volunteer program to get paperback books to the troops. this reporter said don't just send them comic books, a surprising number of those currently deployed are guardsmen (i seem to recall that figure is higher than 20%) in their late 20s and early 30s, or specialized infrastructure units like seebees and MPs which tend to be older than frontline combat units.

The National Guard has played a substantial role in the following military actions:

Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Haiti, Kosovo, Bosnia, and Gulf War 1

I found an interesting history of the Guard at Constitutional charter of the Guard

Here's the last entry:

It's interesting to see how the Guard has transformed into what it is used for today.

One of Rumsfeld's goals for the DOD is to reduce our dependence on Guard and Reserve components, the idea being to make it even easier to wage wars. Kind of a scary prospect if you ask me.

I don't understand your comment. What do you see the force "used for today"?

Isn't that the whole point of having a military? Should the goal be to make it more difficult for the DOD to wage wars?

The Monroe Doctrine from which our foreign policy was govnered from since 1820-1948 basically said our military was only to defend ourselves with. It also stated that we would leave Europe alone so long as they left the Americas alone. It was this doctrine that "proclaimed" us the watchdog of the Western Hemisphere.

Hence for the Spanish American War we needed to be attacked (the USS Maine) in our hemisphere before we did anything. Same goes for WWI and WWII.

Korea and Vietnam drew us away from that in most aspects BUT to the leaders of our country they were fearful of the USSR and China. So defense albeit a faux defense reason could be used.

With Iraq in both cases, Kosovo and Africa, Afghanistan and so on, both Bushs have trully turned us into a more agressive and warlike country.

There will be those that could argue that America has always been a warlike country, but that doesn't seem to be the truth, according to history.

The people did not want the Civil War, Lincoln had no military ambition towards the South, he felt he could resolve the Union with peace. It was the South that started the war by firing on Fort Sumter.

In the Spanish American War, again it was yellow journalism and the sinking of the USS Maine, (which there are arguments with much credence that say we sank it). Hearst knew there was money to be made in war and we were in a depression at the time. If anything it was this war that made us a world power.

WWI while we, the people didn't really care, but the government was quietly supporting the British, but we had no intention of getting involved troop wise. It wasn't until the sinking of the Lusitania (a cruise ship carrying US arms to England) that allowed us the reason to get involved.

WWII again we, the people didn't want involved, but our government quietly supported the British but again had no desire to get involved. It was not until we had Pearl Harbor that we went in.

Korea was supposed to be just a stopping of an invading force and a UN action. We weren't supposed to take any offensive and when we did it cost MacArthur his command. It was a quiet action and the people accepted it.

Vietnam, there was the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin which gave us a reason. Again we were there supposedly under the UN flag to just stop the invasion not to be the aggressors. The people here had finally had enough of war, and took a stand.

Today, we are the aggressors. There is no true reason to be in Iraq, hence the change of reasons every time the polls show Bush losing support.

Our presence in Iraq has been debated in about a thousand threads here, I'm not going to get into it again.

Anyway, your post has exactly what to do with enabling the military to function as easily as possible? Politicians start wars, the military go to war. We should absolutely make it as easy as possible for the military to accomplish the missions they are given. Any argument against it based on foreign policy is misguided.

The National Security Act of 1947 renamed the Department of War to the Department of Defense. And *that* is the point of having our military: to defend us, and our Constitution. In our current system, it isn't harder to wage war, but it is harder to sustain the political will to keep an unpopular war going, which is as it should be.

took the words right out of my mouth. nice post.

along the lines of the national guard discussion, major story on guard deployment on the front page of today's washington post. this is the largest deployment since WWII.

Weekend Warriors Go Full Time

Serious question then,

Would you all consider the National Guard to be apart of our "Standing Army"?

No. The nat'l guard.....should"GUARD" the nation from threat. Not invade another. Almost as bad as pre-emtive attacks.

Well, should we not have gotten involved in WW1 then?

We were not invaded, nor were we going to be.

Going to war is what allows us to defend ourselves. Please stop confusing policy with the ability of our nation to go to war. For the past decade (or so) there has been a general concensus that the US military needs to be capable of fighting two simultaneous wars in two theatres. It's pretty damned apparent that our military was only able to accomplish carrying on two simulataneous operations in Afghanistan and Iraq because we had a strong National Guard.

The policy of pre emptive invasion is completely different than the argument that the military should have the ability to "more easily go to war".