NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is my issue...I'm tired of seeing statistics, or hearing complains that GWB et al have done a terrible thing by invading Iraq.

I, personally, figure anytime an evil tyrant is taken out is a good thing - that while there may be turmoil - the ends can, in fact, justify the means.

I don't necessarily agree with how the Bush admin has handled the entire issue - I believe that better planning was needed once the gov't of Iraq was removed - but in general terms I'm fine with the strategies used.

Now - without listing stats on dead and dying - or how successful GWB has been at fundraising...give me some thoughts on what you would have done differently in the past couple of years.

(I do fully expect someone to say that they would not have put Saddam in power in the first place - but lets assume that a different administration did that, and you have to deal with it from that point on.)

Cheers,
Wolfish.

For one thing, I would have waited to verify my intelligence before charging off to war... And I wouldn't have actively antagonized all nations who dared do disagree with my actions. And focused more on finding Bin Laden than finishing daddy's war.

And the "Freedom Fries" idiocy? I think I'd've skipped that too :roll:

My solution would have been like alot of B52's, alot of ICBMS and that's about it. :lol:

I don't believe GWB was right. He probably wanted to be a big hero, ride in on a big white steed with his wife by his side. A " GWB to the rescue!" sort of thing. He blamed all of the Iraqi and Afghani people in the beginning, making people distrust anyone from the middle east. When he finally revoked his statements, it was too late. The US had already lost its patriotism, and fallen into a grave state of distrust.

I don't believe GWB was right. He probably wanted to be a big hero, ride in on a big white steed with his wife by his side. A " GWB to the rescue!" sort of thing. He blamed all of the Iraqi and Afghani people in the beginning, making people distrust anyone from the middle east. When he finally revoked his statements, it was too late. The US had already lost its patriotism, and fallen into a grave state of distrust.

Its not about what he right or wrong - what would you have done in his place? Ignore Iraq? Attack in a different way? Give me your ideas.

If I were G Bush Jr.

I would never have focused on Iraq.

I would never have bombed a desolate country to fight terrorism, I would have instead focused on the intelligence and NEVER have stopped them from following the terrorist money trail even though it was linked to the Sauds.

I would never have been in bed with the Royal Sauds int eh first place.

I would not have stolen the 2000 election by hiring a database company to invalidate the votes of tens of thousands of legal voters just because they were monirity democrats, and instead tried for a fair election and therefore I would have lost to Gore.

basically, bush attacked a tin pot dictator who isn't the worst one out there. saddam was contained, al quaida wasn't in iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no way sadam could have attacked the u.s., there was no reason for the u.s. to attack saddam.

also, yeah, the alientating people for not going to war was a bad idea. you know the whole pissing off the french thing has done one thing: impoverish the americans with businesses in france. not because the french are doing anything to them, but because the business they get is primarily from americans who travel to france in the first place.

I think that the freeing of Iraq is a good thing, as the mass graves dug up proved. However, Bush's handling of the situation disgusts me. It's sort of a mixed bag for me. I'm happy Raed can walk free again, but sad it had to come from this moron's political campaign to get re-elected.

basically, bush attacked a tin pot dictator who isn't the worst one out there. saddam was contained, al quaida wasn't in iraq, there were no weapons of mass destruction, there was no way sadam could have attacked the u.s., there was no reason for the u.s. to attack saddam.

also, yeah, the alientating people for not going to war was a bad idea. you know the whole pissing off the french thing has done one thing: impoverish the americans with businesses in france. not because the french are doing anything to them, but because the business they get is primarily from americans who travel to france in the first place.

But again - what would you have done? Critics of Bush need to see that you won't beat him by just dumping on him - you need to be able to see past that and put out ideas of your own.

What solutions do you see? What would you have done?

Your not going to get a meaningful response to this question. I haven't seen a post on any of these boards that wasn't just repeating pat answers. As you can see no one can even answer your question with a thought of their own.

Everyone yells that the U.S. didn't have international backing. What they mean is the U.S. didn't have the backing of rich white Europeans. Maybe 5-10 counties against and 70 for. Add the population of the countries backing action and they outnumber those against greatly. Democracy in action pure and simple. People just don't care about black, brown and poor people when they disagree with them.

The U.S. wasted time trying to get a coalition. Should have gone in earlier is the winter. Just said we're going get on board if you want.

Also should have started dropping air units into kurdish areas well before the start of action. Should have opened the front there. Taken smaller non kurdish cities.
Much more costly to do a massive air drop but would have helped test civil response after ocupation, which would have given a better idea of post war conditions.

I think that's the first true response to your post.


:twisted:

But again - what would you have done? Critics of Bush need to see that you won't beat him by just dumping on him - you need to be able to see past that and put out ideas of your own.

What solutions do you see? What would you have done?

i woudl have let the weapons inspectors continue their work. saddam was letting them search the place. if there was something to be found, they would have found it. without all this bloodshed.

otherwise, there are worse dictators out there. if you're going to leave them alone, then why hassle saddam?

I would have:

Remained focused on finding Bin Laden and combatting Al Qaida.

Worked to get Afghanistan independent government as quickly as possible. In doing this, I would have allowed the people to elect the interrum government from a selected pool of qualified individuals.

Worked to increase the effectiveness of our intelligence forces by forging better communications and cooperation among the branches of intelligence. If that meant removing some who refused to cooperate, I would have done so.

Worked to increase the effectiveness of information sharing with other governments, creating a global intelligence force aimed at countering terrorism.

Rather than moving American forces into Iraq, I would have moved them into securing America's points of entry, patrolling borders, train lines, coasts, and also placed a military presence into airports, bus stations and train depots.
We certainly have enough military personnel to do this. If training sessons involved tramping the areas around train tracks and along borders, rather than traipsing through the Quantico Woods, the same exercises could double as measures to help secure this country against more attacks.

As far as Resolution 1441 and Iraq's compliance, I would have encouraged working to convince the UN that the issue needed to be addressed in the manner called for by the resolution. However, I would have thoroughly examined the intelligence myself before suggesting war. (I do that even here in these forums. Before I post on a thread that I find interesting, I go do some research to see what 'the other side' says, and what corrobating evidence I can find.This means it often takes me a long time to reply, but it seems a reasonable thing to do, since the opinions I will then express reflect on me personally. I would therefore do the same with intelligence before saying 'yup, they have WMD's, lets beat the skin off 'em'.)

Rather than rebating, I also would have used the surplus tax money to begin seriously trying to find alternative energy sources that would help to free us from oil dependency, which I believe would thereby lessen our 'offensive' presence in Arab lands. This would result, eventually, in American Oil Dollars not going to fill the pockets of those who wish to destroy us.

I would change the education system to a year round program and allow parents to apply to any school for their childs education. I would not pay transportation costs for them to get the child to the school, but I would encourage public transportation to provide lower cost transport for school children and allow a deduction related to education for that transportation.
I believe that fair competition among the schools for students would go farther in increasing the effectiveness of school than ritualized testing will. Federal aid would be dispersed based on the number of students at a school, and teacher student ratios would be implemented and enforced.



I have to say, it is threads like this one that keep me coming back! You have made me not just consider 'I wouldn't have done that' but seriously think about how I would have done things doifferently. I apologise for the Very Long Reply! It isn't a simple question. And I thank you for encouraging me to Think.

I think Bush could have done some things right.

But, think about this:
Even if Iraq didn't have the weapons, you know they would have used them if they did. You'd be just as pissed at Bush if he had waited until they used them to attack, only then more people would have died.

Is there any way for him to win? Or are all of you perfectionist anuses?

I think Bush could have done some things right.

But, think about this:
Even if Iraq didn't have the weapons, you know they would have used them if they did. You'd be just as pissed at Bush if he had waited until they used them to attack, only then more people would have died.

Is there any way for him to win? Or are all of you perfectionist anuses?

Well we did get a couple of well though out posts.

Everyone says how easy it is to use hindsight - well - even in this case I don't think hindsight is 20-20.

If I were Bush, post 9-11, I would be ready to tear the world down to punish any threat to America.

Think about it - for days and weeks on end we saw body after body dragged from the wreckage of the nation's largest symbol to success.

That's a lot of pressure - and it requires action.

1. I wouldn't have changed a thing about Afganistan - other than possibly further attempts to close the borders.

2. I would not only have taken out Saddam - but would be looking for options on taking out other troublesome leaders. I would have seen this as an opportunity to do a little house cleaning.

3. I do believe tactical implimentation of GWB's plan was seriously lacking a plan for occupying Iraq. A provisional government in waiting should have been formed prior to the capital falling. Special Operations troops could have grabbed any identified political opponents to Saddam (and they did exist - quietly) and brought them to a secure location.

4. The war on Terror should not have been seen to be derailed by Iraq - training camps and infrastructure in other nations should have been attacked before, during and after the Iraq campaign.

Bush has made some errors - but I believe at the end of the day that Iraq and the world is better off without Saddam - WMD notwithstanding. I believe that Isreal has had it right for years - if you can withstand the heat from creating a martyr - then kill the leadership and save your soldiers. The US could learn something from that.

Cheers,
W.

I would have invaded Afghanistan also, but I would've stayed longer and ensured stablity and regrowth.

I would not have invaded Iraq, using the 100 some odd billion to fund domestic prevention strategies (which have so far proven FAR more effective in combating terrorism than Iraq has been).

I would have cooperated fully with other nations to ensure integration and cooperation between security systems.

I would work towards restructuring and reforming the UN to better suit today's needs.

I would have moved into central Africa thereby saving more innocent lives than Iraq has.

I would place pressure on Mugabe.

I would strip ties with Saudi and pressure Musharaf towards democratic reforms.

Drops in the bucket of things I would do...

Here is my issue...I'm tired of seeing statistics, or hearing complains that GWB et al have done a terrible thing by invading Iraq.

I, personally, figure anytime an evil tyrant is taken out is a good thing - that while there may be turmoil - the ends can, in fact, justify the means.

I don't necessarily agree with how the Bush admin has handled the entire issue - I believe that better planning was needed once the gov't of Iraq was removed - but in general terms I'm fine with the strategies used.

Now - without listing stats on dead and dying - or how successful GWB has been at fundraising...give me some thoughts on what you would have done differently in the past couple of years.

(I do fully expect someone to say that they would not have put Saddam in power in the first place - but lets assume that a different administration did that, and you have to deal with it from that point on.)

Cheers,
Wolfish.

Well first of all Daddy Bush should never have withdrawn back in the Gulf War. Norman could have taken Saddam there and then. Regardless of the financial pressures, the Iraqi people had welcomed UN troops back in 1991 and the reconstruction would have been a lot smoother I'd imagine.

A democratic Iraq by this time might have resulted in positive changes across the Middle East. In this year of 2004, events like Sept 11, Bali, Phillipines and Madrid more than likely would have been non existent.

Who knows, the democratic forces in Iran may have won their fight against the Ayatollahs and we would not have the problems we do today.

Here is my issue...I'm tired of seeing statistics, or hearing complains that GWB et al have done a terrible thing by invading Iraq.

I, personally, figure anytime an evil tyrant is taken out is a good thing - that while there may be turmoil - the ends can, in fact, justify the means.

I don't necessarily agree with how the Bush admin has handled the entire issue - I believe that better planning was needed once the gov't of Iraq was removed - but in general terms I'm fine with the strategies used.

Now - without listing stats on dead and dying - or how successful GWB has been at fundraising...give me some thoughts on what you would have done differently in the past couple of years.

(I do fully expect someone to say that they would not have put Saddam in power in the first place - but lets assume that a different administration did that, and you have to deal with it from that point on.)

Cheers,
Wolfish.

Duh...Put it to UN vote and accept the result, whatever it is

trust me dude, I've asked this question maybe 20 times... every time, it ends up in a flamewar or a bush bashing tournament... maybe 1 in 10 responses is intelligent... unreasonable, but at least half-way intelligent.

I would have invaded Afghanistan also, but I would've stayed longer and ensured stablity and regrowth.

I would not have invaded Iraq, using the 100 some odd billion to fund domestic prevention strategies (which have so far proven FAR more effective in combating terrorism than Iraq has been).

I would have cooperated fully with other nations to ensure integration and cooperation between security systems.

I would work towards restructuring and reforming the UN to better suit today's needs.

I would have moved into central Africa thereby saving more innocent lives than Iraq has.

I would place pressure on Mugabe.

I would strip ties with Saudi and pressure Musharaf towards democratic reforms.

Drops in the bucket of things I would do...
:!:
and i hope you wouldn't completely privatize any of these countries thereby hindering any future democratic process

Abolish government, capitalism, and other forms of hierarchy. What do you think I would do?

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

I, personally, figure anytime an evil tyrant is taken out is a good thing - that while there may be turmoil - the ends can, in fact, justify the means.

If the means include giving $500 million (2002) in aid to the head of a country which is described by the US State Department thusly:

"Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested. The government severely represses those it suspects of Islamic extremism. Some 6,000 suspected extremists are incarcerated, and some are believed to have died over the past several years from prison disease and abuse. With few options for religious instruction, some young Muslims have turn to underground extremist Islamic movements. The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2924.htm

- then is there not some kind of failure in the whole process? Is not removing one tyrannical regime whilst propping up another a somewhat flawed strategy?

Is not removing one tyrannical regime whilst propping up another a somewhat flawed strategy?

I thought you knew...A good dictator is a pro American dictator. That philosophy goes all the way back to Flugencio Batista who ruled a capitalist, totalitarian Cuba backed by the US govt.

As long as the dictatorship is loyal to America, it has been proven through history that they are tolerated. The minute they turn, well we all know what happened to Iraq.

I thought you knew...A good dictator is a pro American dictator. That philosophy goes all the way back to Flugencio Batista who ruled a capitalist, totalitarian Cuba backed by the US govt.

Sad to say, it goes back much further than that.