Bush and the 20,000 extra troops

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

You call out that his lies have “killed tens of thousands so far and and wounded many more.” This is really factual? The vast majority of the death numbers you provide are those murdered by Iraqis, Sunni vs. Shiite. Is it not a leap to say that this is US’s fault? Legally speaking, setting up a situation in which someone dies is usually, at best, considered manslaughter. So if we were to put on trial a Sunni who actually shot and killed a Shiite, he gets off free and we charge Bush with the murder?

Okay, let's remove the Iraqis from the equation completely, then. (I don't agree that we should, since there were no doubt thousands that died upon the invasion, but whatever... for argument's sake, let's make this easy). Since the war began on 3/19/03, 3063 Americans have died as a direct result of the war. That's not even beginning to count wounded--people who have lost senses, limbs, etc.

How many people were maimed through the fault of Clinton's blow job? I think you'd struggle to come up with an answer other than "my fragile sensibilities."

EDIT: Just as an aside, as a anecdote about how ridiculously zany some Republicans were about the Starr report--I remember back when it came out that this staunch Republican I work with came into work and printed out the ENTIRE thing. I remember that we didn't have a duplexing printer at the time, so the thing turned out as a HUGE stack of paper. The thing I remember most about it is the guy's face, grinning this huge grin as he grabbed the stack of paper to take home. I think he masturbated over it as soon as he reached his front door.

[Kolar]

I must have been absent the day the principal came over the loud speaker in school and made the announcement, "BJ's are not sex" (taken from a comedian). For God's sake, how can you people say this kind of stuff? Perhaps none of you have been married and had your spouse giving blow jobs to other guys? It isn't sex? I like the definition Seinfeld had, 'sex is when the nipple makes it first appearance'. Blow jobs, hand jobs, tit-fucking, sticking it in your girlfriends ear, is sex. Ask any clergy, ask any lawyer, ask any parent, ask anyone who is married, if these are sex or not.

While all of those are sexual acts they are not technically sex. Sex, 99.9 percent of the time refers to intercourse. While it's important not to treat any type of sexual act lightly arguing over the technical definition only adds to the confusion and does not address the issue.

You call out that his lies have “killed tens of thousands so far and and wounded many more.” This is really factual? The vast majority of the death numbers you provide are those murdered by Iraqis, Sunni vs. Shiite. Is it not a leap to say that this is US’s fault? Legally speaking, setting up a situation in which someone dies is usually, at best, considered manslaughter. So if we were to put on trial a Sunni who actually shot and killed a Shiite, he gets off free and we charge Bush with the murder?

While Bush can not legally be blamed for the individual death of each person in Iraq, he can be blamed for putting people in these positions believing that the occupation of Iraq would be anything but a blood bath. There's a lot he could be impeached for which includes a lot of stuff done in Iraq directly related to the military occupation of the country and domestically, check out Former Rep. McKinney's "Articles of Impeachment". The reality is the Democrats do not want to be seen weak on national security especially with the '08 elections. So short of Bush dissolving the Senate, declaring himself Emperor or attacking a traditional ally, he will not be removed and at this point in time it's very unlikely he will drop the Commander in Chief, "I lead, you follow", "I'm the decider" style of rule. He's not going to pull a Clinton.

[Ephemeral]

Okay, let's remove the Iraqis from the equation completely, then. (I don't agree that we should, since there were no doubt thousands that died upon the invasion, but whatever... for argument's sake, let's make this easy). Since the war began on 3/19/03, 3063 Americans have died as a direct result of the war. That's not even beginning to count wounded--people who have lost senses, limbs, etc.
How many people were maimed through the fault of Clinton's blow job? I think you'd struggle to come up with an answer other than "my fragile sensibilities."

I was not the one who brought up the analogy of Bush/Clinton impeachment. In my view, the analogy does not hold water at all, so I guess we are in agreement.
I think Riesen first brought it up, I tried to make the point that comparing the Clinton impeachment to any possible Bush impeachment was nonsense. The ABB (Anything But Bush) folks were the ones who floated the comparison as justification of their position. I made posts saying that the only way to justify that position was to understand that Clinton got in hot water in the legal arena and that Bush has not broken any laws (that we know of). I made no posts whatsoever arguing the from moral perspective.

The only defense on the Iraqi war that I would be willing to take (if I were willing to take one) would have nothing to do with Clinton.

[Ephemeral]

While all of those are sexual acts they are not technically sex. Sex, 99.9 percent of the time refers to intercourse. While it's important not to treat any type of sexual act lightly arguing over the technical definition only adds to the confusion and does not address the issue.

Discussing what most people mean when they say the word 'sex' has value when people are trying to justify their position. Noramlly when someone asks you, 'did you have sex with her' they are not talking exclusively about intercourse. This is certainly true when a parent asks a kid, or when a detective asks you during an investigation, or when a lawyer asks you on a stand and you are under oath.
And surely there was not any confusion when a person under oath says, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

While Bush can not legally be blamed for the individual death of each person in Iraq, he can be blamed for putting people in these positions believing that the occupation of Iraq would be anything but a blood bath. There's a lot he could be impeached for which includes a lot of stuff done in Iraq directly related to the military occupation of the country and domestically, check out Former Rep. McKinney's "Articles of Impeachment". The reality is the Democrats do not want to be seen weak on national security especially with the '08 elections. So short of Bush dissolving the Senate, declaring himself Emperor or attacking a traditional ally, he will not be removed and at this point in time it's very unlikely he will drop the Commander in Chief, "I lead, you follow", "I'm the decider" style of rule. He's not going to pull a Clinton.

I am not sure that in matters of national security that any impeachment could be pulled off. It would require way too many 'secrets' to come to the surface. Surely none of us (here in the TW forum) really believes that we even begin to know the real stories behind this stuff? Surely we all understand that the real politics are ALWAYS done behind closed doors. The public stuff that we see, the stuff that gets discussed in the news and in these forums is not close to what is really going on. Every administration does this, Democrats and Republicans do it. They listen to the military, they listen to the CIA, they listen to ambassadors, and they listen to the polls which indicate whether or not they will keep having a job. A self-serving public servant? You bet. Hopefully you guys understand that a Democrat is not any better or worse than a Republican. You and I have no real chance at understanding what really goes on behind closed doors. A flipping politician is a politician. They all come out, promise us everything, then deliver a watered down, middle-of-the-road solution that puts the real cost of the solution on the next generation and had cut deals behind closed doors that are never made public. There are many, many things that are not made public for very good reasons.
Like the Iraq problem, do any of us really think that we know the real situation there? Come on. No one has mentioned the relationships between the various countries in the region, we would rather jump up and down and point at Bush. The US has relationships with virtually every country. What has been the role of Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Is it not possible that we cut secret deals with these two countries a while back concerning Iraq but now Iraq is really being heavily influenced by Iran and Syria instead? Do we really think that an impeachment of this sort, meaning all the stealthy domestic and international stuff would be made public, would be allowed to happen for any administration?
Yet we keep seeing these political topics pop up, and we all keep weighing in like we know what we are talking about.

[Kolar]

Discussing what most people mean when they say the word 'sex' has value when people are trying to justify their position. Noramlly when someone asks you, 'did you have sex with her' they are not talking exclusively about intercourse. This is certainly true when a parent asks a kid, or when a detective asks you during an investigation, or when a lawyer asks you on a stand and you are under oath.
And surely there was not any confusion when a person under oath says, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

So just say people are treating the subject of getting a blow job too lightly, there's no need to complicate the issue by arguing that people have confused the meaning of the word. Having sex to me is either vaginal or anal intercourse, nothing more, nothing less. Sexual relations denotes anything of a sexual nature including oral sex.


Everyone knows that Eph. These career politicians, regardless of which party or where they sit on issues they're gonna do what's in their best interest first. You have to admit though that Bush and his people have changed things, that there are forces outside of mainstream politics driving the foreign policy and setting the US national agenda. And I don't mean it in a conspiracy freak kind of way, Bush is a neo-conservative, he and his people have a plan to spread democracy and expand American influence around the world through military preemptive attacks.

The Saudis and Egypt are predominately Sunni, their influence in Iraq under Saddam would have no close to none. Saddam wanted to be the regional ruler over the middle east and given that Saudi Arabia is ultra conservative and doesn't even tolerate other sects of Islam (or other religion for that matter) and the fact that Egypt is ruled by an autocrat, they were not likely to make any deals favorable to Saddam and his people nor the Americans. Nothing extremely secret has to come out to impeach Bush, again have a look at the Articles for Impeachment, it pretty well outlines everything illegal-semi illegal Bush and his Admin. have had their hands in doing over the past 6 years. For an administration that has been the most secretive in recent history, given today's modern media and information outlets as well, I think it would be greatly welcomed by the American public and the world to see what they've been up to but again a lot of it, stuff truly in the interest of national security doesn't need to be released.


Why is it Eph that whenever anyone brings up an issue that Bush has clearly fumbled, mismanaged or otherwise caused a catastrofuck within that you claim we, including you, are not seeing the whole picture? Aren't we entitled to believe what we want? Who gets to decide who has more information, more reliable information? Are our opinion's not valid, given all the knowledge out there? You said before the role of the president is to take the best course of action he/she feels is necessary, popular opinion and polls be damned... to me that's not an elected president within any sort of democracy that's a tyrant.

[genocidal]

Bush has not broken any laws (that we know of).

Bush has not broken any laws (that we know of).

Bush has not broken any laws (that we know of).

Bush has not broken any laws (that we know of).

Bush has not broken any laws (that we know of).

Oh?

[Ephemeral]

Why is it Eph that whenever anyone brings up an issue that Bush has clearly fumbled, mismanaged or otherwise caused a catastrofuck within that you claim we, including you, are not seeing the whole picture? Aren't we entitled to believe what we want? Who gets to decide who has more information, more reliable information? Are our opinion's not valid, given all the knowledge out there? You said before the role of the president is to take the best course of action he/she feels is necessary, popular opinion and polls be damned... to me that's not an elected president within any sort of democracy, that's a tyrant.

First, the only times people post politically is to Bush bash, I do not think that I have ever started a political thread.
Second, the thread titles often imply a neutral post about a political topic but are really nothing more than strong, one-sided opinion. I have said before, it’s great to post an opinion, just mark it as such. I have offered the suggestion that people do their homework, try to present both sides, and then offer their opinions. It simply comes across as a much more balanced perspective. Sorry if it comes across as arrogance or asking people to believe something that they do not want to believe. I try to remain respectful, to keep the discussion civil.

Third, as for your point about leadership in a Presidency, I stand by my position. Leaders are supposed to have more insight and knowledge about issues than the average man on the street. This is why our forefathers made it a Republic and not a democracy. A Republic uses representation and not a popular vote on every issue. People have to understand that a leader (whether it be for a country, a military, or a company) has more vision into the issues than they do.

A worker on my production floor has to have faith in me and the fact that I know things (like our current cash flow, our strategic position in our marketplace, our standings with our customers, etc.) that they do not know. That faith is what makes or breaks the company. If they do not trust me, if they think that I am failing, then the company fails and everyone goes home. Same with other type leaders (including TW squad leaders). They might have an opinion, and I always listen. Most of the time if their opinion is about something they know more about than I do, we will follow it. These things are like ‘this machine needs improvement’. But they need to understand that I make priority decisions everyday that might place improving that piece of equipment on the schedule 2 weeks form now. They might think, this guy is an asshole, does he not see that we are losing money everyday this machine sucks? But I have more ‘vision’ into cash flow and spending across the entire company. So a good leader would go against ‘popular opinion’ and not improve the machine. But he would often also go ‘sell’ the justification for not doing so everyone understands and the faith remains high. So call me a tyrant, but I stick to my point.

[Kolar]

Our representatives make decisions on our behalf. As such if they're not following what the majority of the public wants/needs within the confines of the law, then they're only pushing their own agenda and they're useless to you and I. I don't care if Bush has more information, he clearly is making the wrong decisions time and time again from any point of view. Popular opinion of him by your average Joe American does matter. My country and yours were founded on that belief.

No, you would be an apologist to a tyrant. That's not a characterization of a democratic society or form of Government.

[Epinephrine]

I am not sure that in matters of national security that any impeachment could be pulled off. It would require way too many 'secrets' to come to the surface. Surely none of us (here in the TW forum) really believes that we even begin to know the real stories behind this stuff? Surely we all understand that the real politics are ALWAYS done behind closed doors. The public stuff that we see, the stuff that gets discussed in the news and in these forums is not close to what is really going on. Every administration does this, Democrats and Republicans do it. They listen to the military, they listen to the CIA, they listen to ambassadors, and they listen to the polls which indicate whether or not they will keep having a job. A self-serving public servant? You bet. Hopefully you guys understand that a Democrat is not any better or worse than a Republican. You and I have no real chance at understanding what really goes on behind closed doors. A flipping politician is a politician. They all come out, promise us everything, then deliver a watered down, middle-of-the-road solution that puts the real cost of the solution on the next generation and had cut deals behind closed doors that are never made public. There are many, many things that are not made public for very good reasons.
Like the Iraq problem, do any of us really think that we know the real situation there? Come on. No one has mentioned the relationships between the various countries in the region, we would rather jump up and down and point at Bush. The US has relationships with virtually every country. What has been the role of Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Is it not possible that we cut secret deals with these two countries a while back concerning Iraq but now Iraq is really being heavily influenced by Iran and Syria instead? Do we really think that an impeachment of this sort, meaning all the stealthy domestic and international stuff would be made public, would be allowed to happen for any administration?
Yet we keep seeing these political topics pop up, and we all keep weighing in like we know what we are talking about.

Isn't one of the points of democracy to have the ability to question your leaders? It's true that the United States has started many wars in general over the past 150 years no matter who is in charge, but ultimately there is someone responsible for this at any given time. Ultimately, the person in charge is responsible for it, and that person is the president.

Why are people not allowed to question what their government and what their leaders are doing? Why should people take their leaders on blind faith that the best thing will be done?

The political system simply does not pick the best possible person or the smartest possible person or the person with the most vision. You are confusing the Republic of the United States with Plato's Republic and its philosopher kings.

And regardless, no matter what Bush knew 'at the top', it's pretty obvious that invading Iraq was a pretty bad idea. Just as everyone basically universally agrees that invading Vietnam was a bad idea. Considering the massive amount of bad press recieved in the war, it would be extremely, extremely beneficial for the administration to release any serious real reasons as to why the war was so absolutely necessary in the first place.

All of their initial reasons have been debunked and even disowned by the administration itself. There were no WMDs, and al Queda was not tied to Saddam.



Finally I want to talk about your idea that political threads all seem to present one view. Well guess what... this is a forum. People post their ideas. It is not an open academic debate about issues. It is not a news organization (which has to at least try to be impartial). It is regular people giving their views on a subject. Why should people be forced to support 'the other side' when they clearly do not believe in it?

But if you really want to take the view of showing both sides, you have to see one thing here. People including myself are saying that Bush lied to get the war started. I don't have absolutely concrete proof, but there have been countless reports, and information from CIA operatives that the case for WMD in Iraq was ridiculously weak. The war was originally sold on the premise that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program or other WMD program. It is now known that none of that was true, and even the CIA knew it but the people at the top didn't care.

We could have all just said that Bush is incredibly stupid and ignorant and thus didn't understand the reports or something, but we have given him the benefit of the doubt. That perhaps a guy who was smart enough to at least graduate in an Ivy League school was probably LYING instead of being grossly incompetent about the original reason for the war. And he is probably idealogically driven and perhaps stubbornly unable to admit failure to support putting more troops in Iraq now, instead of just being extremely stupid. In that way we are giving both sides

[Mantra-Slider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUKuumhrSk8

lol..

[Ephemeral]

Isn't one of the points of democracy to have the ability to question your leaders? It's true that the United States has started many wars in general over the past 150 years no matter who is in charge, but ultimately there is someone responsible for this at any given time. Ultimately, the person in charge is responsible for it, and that person is the president.
Why are people not allowed to question what their government and what their leaders are doing? Why should people take their leaders on blind faith that the best thing will be done?

Of course they are. I am not sure that asking people to consider both sides, to consider that we are not experts in these topics, that we might actaully be wrong, is the same as saying that no one should bother to toss their opinion in the ring.

The political system simply does not pick the best possible person or the smartest possible person or the person with the most vision. You are confusing the Republic of the United States with Plato's Republic and its philosopher kings.
And regardless, no matter what Bush knew 'at the top', it's pretty obvious that invading Iraq was a pretty bad idea. Just as everyone basically universally agrees that invading Vietnam was a bad idea. Considering the massive amount of bad press recieved in the war, it would be extremely, extremely beneficial for the administration to release any serious real reasons as to why the war was so absolutely necessary in the first place.

Is it that you are confusing the Greek style democracy with what we have today? I stand by my point that US is a republic, hence the pledge to our flag. 'And to the republic, for which it stands'.

Finally I want to talk about your idea that political threads all seem to present one view. Well guess what... this is a forum. People post their ideas. It is not an open academic debate about issues. It is not a news organization (which has to at least try to be impartial). It is regular people giving their views on a subject. Why should people be forced to support 'the other side' when they clearly do not believe in it?

Whoa, back that truck up. Is it not possible that these forums present one side due to the demographics? Is it not possible that I, being much older and more experienced than many of the folks in here, might not have a valuable perspective that differs from many in these forums?
And no one is forcing anything on anyone. I think we all have the ability to either choose not to read a particular thread or ignore the posts of any given person.

But if you really want to take the view of showing both sides, you have to see one thing here. People including myself are saying that Bush lied to get the war started. I don't have absolutely concrete proof, but there have been countless reports, and information from CIA operatives that the case for WMD in Iraq was ridiculously weak. The war was originally sold on the premise that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program or other WMD program. It is now known that none of that was true, and even the CIA knew it but the people at the top didn't care.
We could have all just said that Bush is incredibly stupid and ignorant and thus didn't understand the reports or something, but we have given him the benefit of the doubt. That perhaps a guy who was smart enough to at least graduate in an Ivy League school was probably LYING instead of being grossly incompetent about the original reason for the war. And he is probably idealogically driven and perhaps stubbornly unable to admit failure to support putting more troops in Iraq now, instead of just being extremely stupid. In that way we are giving both sides

Understood. But can you say for sure that you had no previous prejudices towards Bush before the war? Or is it that you, and many others in these forums, simply did not like him and the war situation simply added fuel to your fire?
As I have said, I think he sucks as a leader. But who cares about my opinion? If I come out railing against him, building arguments to make him look like a fool, do people consider my comments as factual or as 'Eph just doesn't like Bush'? Or am I better off presenting a position that I understand that there are two sides to every topic, that I understand that as a lay-person, I do not have the whole story.

I am willing to simply go away if I am just pissing you guys off. I guess I fantasize that I actually might be listened to as person who has been through their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s and understands how aging can modify your perspective. Sometimes I question why I even bother, but I was formally trained as a teacher and I simply hold out hope that at least one or two people might actually rethink some of these topics.

[404 Not Found]

Out of all this bickering about political posts on this forum, the only thing I can say or add is that there are probably more people disucssing these issues on TW than in their classrooms or at home on such subject matter.

As for the term: are we a "Democracy" or a "Republic". I would agree with Ephemeral on the U.S. being a Republic. That's another topic within itself!

Is a State a State when it recognizes itself as a Commonwealth? Just kidding.

Regardless of who thinks who is correct in this matter, it has brought about a discussion, of which I feel may be helpful to those who are from and as well as not from the States in understanding the political structures and divide that has become so abundant on all levels of government today.

If one person one these forums can use what was discussed here in some form of debate or classroom questioning/discussion in regards to Political or Worldwide events taking place, who's to say it's wrong?

I do not always agree with many people on the forums on the political stances I have discussed, but that's ok with me too and I would assume it's ok with most? I would prefer to hear others views on such topics and perhaps clarify and possibly educate someone, even myself, on issues discussed.

Interesting note that a discussion can be pointed at the U.S. when the topic may be about Iraq and troop surges, but we never hear anything about the U.K. & and their government as to how the people deal with it in Europe. It's not all just a U.S. matter is it?

Regardless, posts like these are obviously stimulating +/- to users on this forum or they would not get half the responses noted.

Nobody is an expert here on such forum topics like this, but it does create some interesting conversation and debate.

[genocidal]

I am willing to simply go away if I am just pissing you guys off. I guess I fantasize that I actually might be listened to as person who has been through their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s and understands how aging can modify your perspective. Sometimes I question why I even bother, but I was formally trained as a teacher and I simply hold out hope that at least one or two people might actually rethink some of these topics.

I think a problem with the country is the age of leaders oftentimes. Personally, I'd consider it a virtue if a Presidential candidate were younger than 45 or even 40. You're old and you'll probably disagree with me but that's how I feel and contrary to Western thought many successful Asian states build their success on youth and actually force leaders to retire from politics after 60.

[Ephemeral]

I think a problem with the country is the age of leaders oftentimes. Personally, I'd consider it a virtue if a Presidential candidate were younger than 45 or even 40. You're old and you'll probably disagree with me but that's how I feel and contrary to Western thought many successful Asian states build their success on youth and actually force leaders to retire from politics after 60.

Thats' interesting considering the value most Asian cultures puts on their older members, are you sure it is accurate?

[genocidal]

Yeah I'll do my best to find my source (I would have posted it if I could find it easier). I read it in an interview with the previous PM of Singapore on the topic of how his country was able to develop so much more quickly than other nations.

EDIT: Found it.

Lee Kuan Yew: Let's not get into a debate on semantics. The system of government in China will change. It will change in Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam. It is changing in Singapore. But it will not end up like the American or British or French or German systems. What are we all seeking? A form of government that will be comfortable, because it meets our needs, is not oppressive, and maximizes our opportunities. And whether you have one-man, one-vote or some-men, one vote or other men, two votes, those are forms which should be worked out. I'm not intellectually convinced that one-man, one-vote is the best. We practice it because that's what the British bequeathed us and we haven't really found a need to challenge that. But I'm convinced, personally, that we would have a better system if we gave every man over the age of 40 who has a family two votes because he's likely to be more careful, voting also for his children. He is more likely to vote in a serious way than a capricious young man under 30. But we haven't found it necessary yet. If it became necessary we should do it. At the same time, once a person gets beyond 65, then it is a problem. Between the ages of 40 and 60 is ideal, and at 60 they should go back to one vote, but that will be difficult to arrange.

It's a Foreign Affairs article from March of 1994 by Fareed Zakaria. The title is "Culture is Destiny: A Conversation with Lee Kuan Yew". He's got some strange undemocratic views but that's the point of the interview. It's a pretty interesting read, but Yew is mainly politicking for his nation's success. I guess he's arguing for a certain age range (that you probably fit in) but I share his wariness of age and its effects on certain views. That could be my youthful bias though.