General discussions : Garbage threads : George W. Bush;s Resume (C.V)
>
New Topic
>
Topic Locked
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Garbage threads
> George W. Bush;s Resume (C.V)
Bookmark topic
In all fairness there isn't a great deal to tell about my father, and what he did in Iraq, he spent about 2 weeks of it, in Kuwait, travelling into Iraq on a bi-daily (is that even a phrase?) basis, when he went into Iraq, he went in with either US or UK convoy, and his work mainly involved making sure the troops were getting the supplies. For the remainder of the time, he stayed in Iraq, moving from base to base, sometimes in the US quarters, sometimes with the UK quarters, doing the same kind of work.
The stories came from when he was travelling in the convoy, and when there wasn't a sandstorm, they could see villages, on the outskirts of Iraq, that hadn't been assaulted by troops in the same way as other major cities, and the people were living in absolute squalor, with people looking malnourished and ill. True the malnourishment, and ill looking was most likely not to do with Saddam, but it give more of a picture of Iraq for me.
When he came back, he described it to me,, and it just made me think more about the people's lives with Saddam, and how beneficial it could be for them without Saddam.
--
Posted: 2004-07-29 18:27:07
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-29 18:10:55, Sammy_boy wrote:
@patrick - Another little point of mine - I do wonder if the invasion of Iraq was simply the US looking for someone to invade and try to take away some of the pain of 9/11 - a sort of 'scapegoat'. Now, not for a moment am I taking anything away from the horrors of 9/11, or doubting that international terrorism must be stamped out somehow, but I'm not sure how much Saddam (evil though he was) had to do with 9/11.
Was the US - wounded and reeling - looking for the first person they could find to give a good kicking to to make themselves feel better and try to take the pain of 9/11 away, or at least help them to forget about it?
Al Quieda is frittered away in little terror 'cells' all over the planet - so the US would have to invade most countries in the world - including the UK and.... themselves!
I do take your point however on now not being dependent on oil on states that may sponsor or turn a blind eye to terrorism - although it does also depend on who the Iraqi people elect too!
As for Saddam - I'd like to see him imprisoned for life. Why? Because death is far too easy a way out for him. I want to see him rot in jail for the rest of his life, deprived of all the luxuries he loved, with plenty of time to think about what a bastard he was. That's a much worse punishment than death in my opinion.
When I woke up the morning of 9/11 and watched the towers fall on my television, I thought to myself we are at war. It actually shocked me that the president didn't pressure congress to declare official and real war. (US Government/Civic lesson for those who don't know: The US Congress is the only group that can actually declare war. And no war has been declared.)
But who would we declare war on? Terrorists are not states or nations. They are, as you say, fractured and spread out amongst just about all nations. Tricky indeed. But just because something had never been done before doesn't mean something cannot be done. So what would I have done if I were president?
I would have called congress together for an emergency joint session, and in front of cameras and the media, asked them to sign a declaration of war against all international terrorist organizations and any nation that is proven to harbor, finance, supply, or give aid to them. I would have presented a list of nations that had been on the lists of terrorists sponsors who repeatedly refused to take any action about it. This is probably a great reason why I should never be the President of the United States.
In hindsight I can see how what I would have wanted to do would not have worked.
First, the list of countries might not be our real enemies - even though they don't like us. Maybe those that have active terrorist cells in them are unable to do anything effectively against them. Maybe they need financial and/or military support to expel them.
Second, one of those countries would have been Saudi Arabia -where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. But to go to war with the country that supplies a huge chunk of the US oil supply would have thrust a knife into our already injured economy. We cannot sustain a war effort with a broken economy.
Bush may not seem that smart but if he were a real "cowboy" he could have done what I thought was best and go to war with a bunch of countries all at once. Instead he focused on one at a time while safeguarding our economy ... in this way:
First - He allowed time for intelligence to be improved (unfortunately not fast enough for Iraq) so that we could identify our real enemies and help those who would be our allies instead.
Second - By finally dealing with Saddam in Iraq he took out what everyone at the time believed to be a serious threat who would have worked with Al Quaida and other terrorists if he could. In addition he put a large chunk of oil reserves in a more secure situation for use by the western world and positioned us to be in a much more influential position with Saudi Arabia to deal with their terrorist issues without immediately cutting off it's oil. In other words, if we went to war with Saudi first, we may not have had the oil we needed to help our faltering economy. But now we can say to Saudi - Clean up your act in regards to terrorism or we may have to stop buying oil from you (which we can now do since we can look to Iraq for replacement oil). This allows us to have a great deal of leverage over Saudi Arabia without having to go bomb the most sacred sites of Islam.
It also lets the other countries in the region, like Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, etc... know that we are not fooling around and we mean business. This puts us in a much better position to force them make real changes (even if they don't like us) without having to go to war with them.
Yes - and as for your first point - it made me feel better to finally have kicked Saddam's ass after he had been thumbing his nose at the international community (and the US specifically) for over a decade. Someone who attempts to assassinate your head of state is never going to cooperate with you. Remember - it was Afghanistan that got the first boot from us - meanwhile we gave Saddam all that time between 11 Sep. 2001 and 03 March 2003 to start cooperating with the UN! Iraq was not the first to get the military treatment of the US.
Good point about what Saddam should get as a punishment. I was only stating what I think will happen to him. I will keep my opinion about what I think should happen to him myself for two reasons: 1) it's up to the Iraqi people what should be done with him, and 2) I don't want to have you running around calling me a sick sadistic freak!
--
Posted: 2004-07-29 20:33:13
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-29 18:27:07, maddav wrote:
In all fairness there isn't a great deal to tell about my father, and what he did in Iraq, he spent about 2 weeks of it, in Kuwait, travelling into Iraq on a bi-daily (is that even a phrase?) basis, when he went into Iraq, he went in with either US or UK convoy, and his work mainly involved making sure the troops were getting the supplies. For the remainder of the time, he stayed in Iraq, moving from base to base, sometimes in the US quarters, sometimes with the UK quarters, doing the same kind of work.
The stories came from when he was travelling in the convoy, and when there wasn't a sandstorm, they could see villages, on the outskirts of Iraq, that hadn't been assaulted by troops in the same way as other major cities, and the people were living in absolute squalor, with people looking malnourished and ill. True the malnourishment, and ill looking was most likely not to do with Saddam, but it give more of a picture of Iraq for me.
When he came back, he described it to me,, and it just made me think more about the people's lives with Saddam, and how beneficial it could be for them without Saddam.
I hope life for the Iraqi people will be much better for them now that Saddam is gone and world attention is focused on their new democracy. However - no democracy ever started of with immediate peace and prosperity. It takes time. The philosophy of the people must change from that of being under a dictator who gave them relative security and basic civic services in exchange for their unquestioned loyalty and obedience
to having to sort things out for themselves the problems of society while productively expressing their opinions to effect change. Talk about a difficult road ahead. Democracy isn't for the timid.
And thank you for expressing what you know about the situation in Iraq. Every perspective is important.
--
Posted: 2004-07-29 20:42:36
Edit :
Quote
and thank you, for a very informed counter-argument.
--
Posted: 2004-07-29 21:16:06
Edit :
Quote
Here is something that might cool tempers in here..specially for bush supporters.
The hottest Bush '04 ad so far
_________________
>> [ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-07-30 00:32 ]
--
Posted: 2004-07-30 01:31:37
Edit :
Quote
Actor William Baldwin arrives at a Louis Boston party in Boston, Wednesday, July 28
--
Posted: 2004-07-30 01:39:59
Edit :
Quote
Hello Patrick, can I join in the discussion bout G.Bush in general and specifically on his foreign policy? I'm asking coz I dont want to just butt in and sound rude. Have to say, I'm impressed by the way you argue, but I do think some of ur points merit closer analysis. If you dont want to debate/discuss with me, no problem I'll just be a silent observer. If not let the discussion begin. Cheers
--
Posted: 2004-07-30 11:41:09
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-30 11:41:09, alpal wrote:
Hello Patrick, can I join in the discussion bout G.Bush in general and specifically on his foreign policy? I'm asking coz I dont want to just butt in and sound rude. Have to say, I'm impressed by the way you argue, but I do think some of ur points merit closer analysis. If you dont want to debate/discuss with me, no problem I'll just be a silent observer. If not let the discussion begin. Cheers
This was not my thread to begin with ... and when I butted in I was called a few rude things ... but I stayed. So I have absolutely no right whatsoever to tell someone they can or cannot post. I'm here to debate. I'm here to learn something as well as work toward being able to defend my opinions better. And if I cannot defend my opinions well, then it's time for me to rethink myself. I welcome the discussion. What's on your mind?
--
Posted: 2004-07-30 16:33:09
Edit :
Quote
Anyone can post anywhere they like, but try to make sure its relevant to the issue
--
Posted: 2004-07-30 16:35:15
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2004-07-30 01:39:59, axxxr wrote:
Actor William Baldwin (who is clearly not a political science major) arrives at a Louis Boston party in Boston, Wednesday, July 28
Don't you just love the expression on his face?
--
Posted: 2004-07-30 16:36:12
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Topic Locked
