Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

ilovebushnotdick wrote: Bush masacred over 600,000 Iraqi civilians. and because he does not want to look guilty he continnues to masacre them by refusing to pull out

Why do you hate America?

Oh, wait, the Democrats have Congress now..

Nevermind, continue with your constitutional liberty. :-D

[Refrozen Seabass]

Dookiestix wrote: His ignorance is only shadowed by his enormous incompetence.

And his mendacity. Don't forget that he lied you into this war he's too incompetent to wage.

Quote: Now, enjoy the show.

Oh, I have.

[Wizard From Oz]

Quote: Dookiestix wrote:
Because he's an idiot?

Can always count on you to bring an intelligent rebuttal to the table.

Actually he is right - Any general examination of Iraq politics pre Saddam rule would see the inherrant instability of the political process in the country dating back to the early 60's - Even further if you include simple civil unrest.

One of the orginal charms of Saddam was his ability to bring stabilty to a very tired people. During the first gulf war - The US Government resisited the urge to persue regeme change, simply because the options were even worse than currently faced

[Trajan]

Nixon wrote: Going by all historical standards(save Napoleon invading Russia), when a country invades and destroys a foreign army, the losing country falls under the control of the victor. How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?



I guess he never heard of the Spanish nationalist insurgency against Napoleon. Or the Phillipine insurgency against America. Or the partisan warfare in Yugoslavia against Germany.

O, I forgot, the Soviets in Afghanistan......

[moderate]

I think it was pretty obvious what would happen from the recent experiences in Yugoslavia. The only way that they could be at peace was to seperate Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo due to old hatreds and religion. Why would anyone think that Iraq would be any different?

[Federali]

George Bush is an idiot who never understood history.

Anyone who has done any bit of history lesson regarding Middle East would
have seen this miles away.

[Bobby Chicken]

Has anyone ever thought that perhaps there is a reason why Bush called this the "War on Terror"? Don't, get me wrong, I am in no way for a so-called WAR on terror, but it would seem that he did predict this. After all, it is terrorists America is now fighting, not just some group of radomly spawned people.

[moderate]

Bobby Chicken wrote: Has anyone ever thought that perhaps there is a reason why Bush called this the "War on Terror"? Don't, get me wrong, I am in no way for a so-called WAR on terror, but it would seem that he did predict this. After all, it is terrorists America is now fighting, not just some group of radomly spawned people.
95% of the insurgents in Iraq are either Sunni or Shiites from Iraq. They are fighting a civil war for control of their country. Although their tactics are terrorist in nature, these groups are not part of a larger terrorist organization such as Al Quada.

It has become obvious that the US doesn't even know who it is currently training and supplying weapons to. Since the US is training and supplying weapons to the current Shiite dominated government, who is to say that this government will not eventually join forces with the Shiite militia to crush the Sunnis and become rulers that will become worst than Sadam.

[Bobby Chicken]

moderate wrote:
95% of the insurgents in Iraq are either Sunni or Shiites from Iraq. They are fighting a civil war for control of their country. Although their tactics are terrorist in nature, these groups are not part of a larger terrorist organization such as Al Quada.

It has become obvious that the US doesn't even know who it is currently training and supplying weapons to. Since the US is training and supplying weapons to the current Shiite dominated government, who is to say that this government will not eventually join forces with the Shiite militia to crush the Sunnis and become rulers that will become worst than Sadam.

Basis for the statistic you have provided? If your going to give me number instead of words, they better not be BS. I'll accept it as the vast majority though.

Please understand me. I am in no way supporting the Iraqi War. But to say that Bush never saw the terrorists coming is a pretty grave accusation. He could have underestimated the number, but he saw them coming. The fact that the Iraquis are fighting each other instead of establishing a peaceful democracy shows a major fallacy in the belief that Muslims are a peace-loving religion. The Koran offers paradise to men who die for Allah and both these groups think they are dying for Allah. Basically the Koran is (not is, but rather, contains) a declaration of war against all non-Muslims. So the problem is that Bush overestimated the Muslim mind and its comprehesion of peace and prosperity. Strangely biting to mainline Democratic belief. :lol: That's one of the reasons I like politics. In my opinion, there are three options:
1. nuke 'em
2. convert 'em
3. leave 'em be
Nuking a billion and a half of people is cruel in my opinion.
Converting all of them is also impractical. Pleas note that I'm not speaking only of Christianity. They would be functional "world citizens" as atheists Hindus, or whatever, although, as a Christian, I would, of course, love to see them become Christians (but back to politics now)
The third option is the only one left, and it's the one I have supported since, oh, ever since I was born, maybe a little before. :wink: Bush is not the greatest president. DUH. But his not some bumbing cowboy as he is often portrayed. His lack of oratory abillities I actually consider a plus, since many leaders have been able to talk great things, but then lead their country downward. His so called lack of ambition, if it was truly there, is the greatest quality a president can have (look at Washington who didn't even want to be president). His decesion making is indeed suspect, but let's remember that it takes more than one fool to wreck havoc to this nation. If Bush misled the Democrats, who voted for the war on Iraq, shame on them for being stupid, congrats to Bush for being smart. I guess, what I really want to say is: Bush maybe a bad president, but he isn't stupid. When, I look arround me and see all the ignorant people, I despair of ever having another good president.

[moderate]

Bobby Chicken wrote: Basis for the statistic you have provided?
The following is a quote by the Washington Post.

Quote: Cordesman said the relative influence of foreign and Iraqi elements of the insurgency is difficult to measure because accurate numbers are hard to come by. In a report published in September, he and a co-author said they believed that 4 to 10 percent of the roughly 30,000 insurgents in Iraq are foreigners, many of them adherents of a radical branch of Islam known as Salafism.

They said that interviews with intelligence officials and earlier studies suggested that the largest contingents are Algerians (20 percent), Syrians (18 percent), Yemenis (17 percent), Sudanese (15 percent) and Egyptians (13 percent). They can be hard to distinguish from the general population, the report said, because cell leaders have encouraged them to shave their beards, which symbolize piety, and to carry cigarettes, even though most Salafis do not smoke.

From CBS news.

Quote: Appealing again to Iraq's divided sects, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki urged Iraqis to put aside their sectarian, ethnic and political differences and embrace his reconciliation plan.

“National reconciliation is a correct way of thinking and carries a high feeling of responsibility,” al-Maliki said. “To succeed in this today, we have to embrace the culture of dialogue and reconciliation.”

Al-Maliki's plan is intended to bridge the communal animosities fueling Iraq's violence. Among its 24 points, it offers amnesty to members of the Sunni Arab-led insurgency not involved in terrorist activities and calls for disarming primarily Shiite sectarian militias.

But no major Sunni insurgent group has publicly agreed to join the plan, and no steps have been taken to rein in Shiite militias. Since the plan was unveiled in late June, car bombings, mortar attacks and shootings have killed hundreds of Iraqis.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Nixon wrote: Going by all historical standards(save Napoleon invading Russia), when a country invades and destroys a foreign army, the losing country falls under the control of the victor. How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

Quote: We have not won the war in Iraq because of something completely unforeseeable: widespread massacres of Iraqi civilians by other Iraqis and Muslims. We have never seen mass murder of fellow citizens in order to remove an outside occupier. No Japanese blew up Japanese temples in order to rid Japan of the American occupier. No Germans mass murdered German schoolchildren and teachers to rid Germany of the American, British, French and Soviet occupiers.

The level of cruelty and evil exhibited by those America is fighting in Iraq is new. Had Iraq followed any precedent in all the annals of resistance to occupation, America would likely have been victorious in Iraq. It may just be impossible, if one is morally bound not to kill large numbers of civilians, to fight those who target their own civilians and hide among them. But George W. Bush had no way to foresee such systematic cruelty.

-Dennis Prager

I believe I've touched upon the answer in this post I just made:
IF Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror .....?

The short answer is that the deep divisions between the Shia and Sunni were never calculated into the equation.
He should have known this action was akin to opening Pandora's Box.

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat ~ October 7, 2002

[flamboyant]

Nixon wrote: Going by all historical standards(save Napoleon invading Russia), when a country invades and destroys a foreign army, the losing country falls under the control of the victor. How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

Quote: We have not won the war in Iraq because of something completely unforeseeable: widespread massacres of Iraqi civilians by other Iraqis and Muslims. We have never seen mass murder of fellow citizens in order to remove an outside occupier. No Japanese blew up Japanese temples in order to rid Japan of the American occupier. No Germans mass murdered German schoolchildren and teachers to rid Germany of the American, British, French and Soviet occupiers.

The level of cruelty and evil exhibited by those America is fighting in Iraq is new. Had Iraq followed any precedent in all the annals of resistance to occupation, America would likely have been victorious in Iraq. It may just be impossible, if one is morally bound not to kill large numbers of civilians, to fight those who target their own civilians and hide among them. But George W. Bush had no way to foresee such systematic cruelty.

-Dennis Prager

Anyone ever hear of Algiers?

[Vexillum]

Nixon wrote: Going by all historical standards(save Napoleon invading Russia), when a country invades and destroys a foreign army, the losing country falls under the control of the victor. How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

Oh please, the US spent a decade trying to sow civil war in Iraq to weaken Saddam. That's how Bush was to know.

WWII Japan and Germany were homogeneous populations, so there were no factions to fight for power (with the occupiers showing clear preferences). And, no one claimed to be in Japan or Germany for the sake of the local people. Remember, Bush all out lied America into war with Iraq. Another thing, the Iraqi people reasonably don't believe that the US is there to rebuild and stabilize Iraq.

[Dookiestix]

Federali wrote: George Bush is an idiot who never understood history.

Anyone who has done any bit of history lesson regarding Middle East would
have seen this miles away.
Millions of people around the world who protested this war knew better than uncurious George what would happen if he invaded. To think that our pResident is that much of a dolt compared to the liberal progressives who have been villified by the right for their anti-war stance regarding Iraq is mind boggling.

[el_hombre_de_Dios]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Nixon wrote: How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Ignorance of not being able to see into the future "is not an excuse"!?!? You mean he should have used a crystal ball. :lol:

:roll: I swear more than a few of the 'Hate-Bushies' use some of the most inane diatribe.

[Dookiestix]

el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Nixon wrote: How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Ignorance of not being able to see into the future "is not an excuse"!?!? You mean he should have used a crystal ball. :lol:

:roll: I swear more than a few of the 'Hate-Bushies' use some of the most inane diatribe.
Um, I'd stop while you're ahead. You're only reinforcing LostSoul3412's point.

[flamboyant]

The liberals have been doing a great job vilifying themselves without any help from conservatives.

They were the Neville Chamberlain appeasers during WWII.

They were rooting for the wrong side in the Cold War.

Now they're once again they play the role of the great appeasers in the GWOT.

Should the newly elected Iraqi government survive, it will indeed be a devastating blow to terrorists across the globe. The only idiocy was underestimating how hard the slog would be.

I usually like Prager, but he needs to watch this movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_algiers#2003_Pentagon_screening

The Pentagon should have watched that s**t BEFORE the war.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Dookiestix wrote: el_hombre_de_Dios wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Nixon wrote: How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

Ignorance is not an excuse.

Ignorance of not being able to see into the future "is not an excuse"!?!? You mean he should have used a crystal ball. :lol:

:roll: I swear more than a few of the 'Hate-Bushies' use some of the most inane diatribe.
Um, I'd stop while you're ahead. You're only reinforcing LostSoul3412's point.

Unbelievable that with a constant History of 1000+ years, nobody at the Dept's of State, Defense or in the Executive Branch thought to actually research the possibilities before deciding to OCCUPY the Cradle of Civilization. :gdgf:

It's not like these folks just moved into the neighborhood.
The city of Baghdad is the oldest city on this planet yet,
nobody thought to understand the culture or issues that motivate the society?

[Chymical]

Nixon enquired: "How Can You Blame Bush?"

BECAUSE THE BUCK STOPS THERE!!!

[LostSoul3412]

Bobby Chicken wrote: Has anyone ever thought that perhaps there is a reason why Bush called this the "War on Terror"? Don't, get me wrong, I am in no way for a so-called WAR on terror, but it would seem that he did predict this. After all, it is terrorists America is now fighting, not just some group of radomly spawned people.

So where's bin Laden?