Political Crossfire Forums

Nixon · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Posts: 2703 Location: Purgatory

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

Dookiestix · Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:40 pm Post subject:

Because he's an idiot? :roll:

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) · Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 6615 Location: VA

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

That's very well written, it is very rare what we are experiencing in Iraq now as compared to previous times like WW2, thus making it much more difficult.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 8921

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

Ignorance is not an excuse.

JohnM · Joined: 16 Jun 2006 Posts: 292 Location: SC

Dookiestix wrote: Because he's an idiot? :roll:
Can always count on you to bring an intelligent rebuttal to the table.

sLiPpY · Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 10094

JohnM wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Because he's an idiot? :roll:
Can always count on you to bring an intelligent rebuttal to the table.

Let me rephrase that...how about, "Bush was an idiot for not listening to his older wiser father?"

mr.snruB · Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 7136 Location: Ontario, Canada

How did he not know that there was going to be trouble? Hmmm...two religious groups who want to get at each others throats are left to their own devices....I wonder what will happen? :roll:

Oh wait, you can't blame Bush for not coming to the obvious conclusion, because he wasn't even aware there was a difference between the two religious groups there

Dookiestix · Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject:

JohnM wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Because he's an idiot? :roll:
Can always count on you to bring an intelligent rebuttal to the table.
LostSoul3412 wrote: Ignorance is not an excuse.
Yep. and not even for Bush.

Bush's intelligence has been on full display to the American people for qutie some time now, and I have no doubt that he's probably the least curious, most unambitious and clueless individual to occupy the White House. The endless excuses from the Right have been beyond hysterical in defense of Bush, and it comes as no surprise that Bush has the lowest approval ratings of his pResidency.

Iraq was Bush's war of choice. He refused to listen to his Dad, let alone Scowcroft, Powell, and others who KNEW that invading Iraq was a bad idea. I consider him an even bigger idiot for not listening to anything that resembles conventional wisdom, and instead lied us into his corporate war.

His ignorance is only shadowed by his enormous incompetence.

Now, enjoy the show.

sLiPpY · Joined: 24 Nov 2004 Posts: 10094

mr.snruB wrote: How did he not know that there was going to be trouble? Hmmm...two religious groups who want to get at each others throats are left to their own devices....I wonder what will happen? :roll:

Oh wait, you can't blame Bush for not coming to the obvious conclusion, because he wasn't even aware there was a difference between the two religious groups there

Why is it that the Clinton Administration was always prepared?

s**t, in 1999 and 2000 NORAD practicied for "Airliners used as Weapons"

In 1999 the DoD conducted a mock invasion of Iraq and estimated that over 430,000 troops would be needed to maintain order, and was the most likely count to stave off potentional factional fighting.

I agree with Nixon. Bush is the ultimate dumbass :)

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

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

And what does that make us? Lemmings? We love an idiot in elected office. It is a reaction to the deep seated fear we have of people with that outrageous amount of power, and that minor amount of restraints. We are happy to have stupid presidents because we can compare favorably, and it allows us to feel we have a fighting chance if he turns on us. But, this time it did not work out. We got what we wanted: An unslick President. What did it get us? Knee deep in shet.

So who do you blame? He did not do it alone. All those democrats we re-elected who were willing to sell the national treasure and three thousand of our lives on a bet they could scrape off the blame on an idiot they all knew was an idiot on the front side are all to blame. Hoping for the best is not government. Letting the blind guy drive because everyone else is too drunk is not government. Putting your political future above the future of the nation is not government. In what sense does that bunch of monkeys get to be called a government? They couldn't govern their asses with a raw hide whip and a concrete harness.

mr.snruB · Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 7136 Location: Ontario, Canada

Dookiestix wrote:
Yep. and not even for Bush.

Bush's intelligence has been on full display to the American people for qutie some time now, and I have no doubt that he's probably the least curious, most unambitious and clueless individual to occupy the White House.

The thing that sort of encapsulates Bush's whole attitude with his presidency, to me, is that he won't even read his own PDB's. He has someone else read them to him. Clinton read his, and researched the contents before he met with who ever the PDB's pertained to so they could talk on the level

Fiduciary · Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject:

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

And THUS, you offer the best input you have on most matters, infantile name-calling spaleen.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for playing, Lib.

Fiduciary · Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: How can you blame Bush?

sLiPpY wrote: mr.snruB wrote: How did he not know that there was going to be trouble? Hmmm...two religious groups who want to get at each others throats are left to their own devices....I wonder what will happen? :roll:

Oh wait, you can't blame Bush for not coming to the obvious conclusion, because he wasn't even aware there was a difference between the two religious groups there

Why is it that the Clinton Administration was always prepared?

s**t, in 1999 and 2000 NORAD practicied for "Airliners used as Weapons"

In 1999 the DoD conducted a mock invasion of Iraq and estimated that over 430,000 troops would be needed to maintain order, and was the most likely count to stave off potentional factional fighting.

I agree with Nixon. Bush is the ultimate dumbass :)

And less than a year before the USS COLE was bombed THE EXACT SAME ATTEMPT was made but failed because the boat was overloaded with explosives.

Umm, YEAH, "always prepared"

:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:

Dookiestix · Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:19 pm Post subject:

Fiduciary wrote: Dookiestix wrote: Because he's an idiot? :roll:

And THUS, you offer the best input you have on most matters, infantile name-calling spaleen.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks for playing, Lib.
No problem, Righty. Glad to be of service. :-D

cool_chick · Joined: 26 Dec 2004 Posts: 21295 Location: Chicago

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

Quote: How was Bush to know what the Iraqi fanatics would be capable of?

His father wrote in 1996 an analysis that would result in the exact outcome we're seeing today....

He knew....or just ignored it....but he had aforeknowledge.....

Quote: 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.

That's not true. Off the top of my head...Afghanistan and the Soviets...

ilovebushnotdick · Joined: 24 Oct 2006 Posts: 265

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.
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

The American · Joined: 23 Oct 2004 Posts: 3636 Location: Oklahoma

Almost 7 years of Bush bashing attempts from politicians, and the less informed public. Who is the idiot now?

:wink:

mr.snruB · Joined: 21 Oct 2006 Posts: 7136 Location: Ontario, Canada

The American wrote: Almost 7 years of Bush bashing attempts from politicians, and the less informed public. Who is the idiot now?

:wink:

I'm going to have to go with Bush here

Dookiestix · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:39 am Post subject:

The American wrote: Almost 7 years of Bush bashing attempts from politicians, and the less informed public. Who is the idiot now?

:wink:
Republicans at the moment.

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/news/opinion/guests/136629,1HAN1-15.article

Refrozen Seabass · Joined: 19 Apr 2005 Posts: 2899

It's easy.

If he didn't know the history of Iraq and its various religious sects and how they relate to one another, then it's his fault for not making an informed decision. If he did know, then he made the decision to invade knowing what would happen and it's his fault anyway.

The buck stops right here, remember? Right here.