NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday the 900th American soldier died in Iraq, the 762nd since our Mission was Accomplished over a year ago. Never let it be said that George W. Bush doesn't know how to pick his moments, because he chose yesterday to announce that he wishes to be remembered as the "peace president."

According to Bush's address to a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, "Nobody wants to be the war president." An interesting statement, made more interesting by the fact that it is coming from a man who, on February 7th of this year, told NBC's Meet the Press that "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."

Bush may have been jumping the gun (again) when he promised that "the next four years will be peaceful years," since that would require that American military presence in Iraq be completely absent within 4 months. Not even the most optimistic of strategists has proposed such a goal, leading one to wonder if perhaps Bush needs to don his flight suit again to win support for his theory that "peace" often involves American soldiers dying in combat.

"When we talk about war, we're talking about peace."

War is peace.

(I'm sure you know the rest)

That's hilarious, considering that Iran, another member of Bush's hit-list, has been implicated in 9/11, and is now considered increasingly hostile. Somehow, I don't think any peace will last as long as that man is in the White House.

. Somehow, I don't think any peace will last as long as that man is in the White House.
neither do i but do you think john kerry could make peace if you do you have most likely been brainwashed, becasue John Kerry was a soilder in Nam and then he left and said his service was worth dirt and now he trys looking like a veteran he is a beacon to the words "I agree with the people and will try and meet their every demand while i run then I will not manage and at the end of my term, i will not get reelected becasue it turns out i am a total ding bat."

neither do i but do you think john kerry could make peace if you do you have most likely been brainwashed, becasue John Kerry was a soilder in Nam and then he left and said his service was worth dirt and now he trys looking like a veteran he is a beacon to the words "I agree with the people and will try and meet their every demand while i run then I will not manage and at the end of my term, i will not get reelected becasue it turns out i am a total ding bat."

Don't construe my condemnation of Bush as support for Kerry. I have a hard time distinguishing between the two in terms of policy, except for the fact that Kerry is less of a fundamentalist nut. Personally, my politics lies left of the Democratic party. Then again, since I can't vote in U.S. elections, it really doesn't matter, now, does it?

That four month thing reminds me of Nader's slave reparations. Neither of them think they can win, so their setting themselves up to blast the one who won when they do not do the things they said they would.

Peace president??? What a joke. Time and time again he has proven his idiocy. His whole damn administration infuriates me.

OF course, that doesn't stop Dickie-boy's old buddies from continuing to do business with Iran:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/19/news/international/halliburton.reut/

They just get around that whole little embargo inconvenience by doing it through their Cayman Island subsidiary....

:sniper: When he says peace is this hat he means? :sniper: I think so...

The *Mission* isnt accomplished until all the troops are out of Iraq

The mans a fuckin liability.....i wouldnt trust him to organise a pie fight in kipling's...let alone running a country....

...and month after month he seems to prove to the world how retarded he actually is, by saying something contradicting or just plain stupid :headbang:

"When we talk about war, we're talking about peace."

War is peace.

(I'm sure you know the rest)

Making war for peace is sort of like f*cking for virginity!

Making war for peace is sort of like f*cking for virginity!

:D That's a good one... I'm writing that one down.

I seem to remember that he once said he's a president of war. And now all of the sudden he wants to be remembered as a president of peace?

I can sum Bush's war/peace stance up in 7 lines.

Bush: Die Afghanis!
US: We love da prez!
Bush: Die Iraqis!
US: We love da prez!
and now
Bush: Die Iranians!
US: Go, prez, go!

I seem to remember that he once said he's a president of war. And now all of the sudden he wants to be remembered as a president of peace?

yup, that's in the first post...he said it on the record as recently as february.

That's hilarious, considering that Iran, another member of Bush's hit-list, has been implicated in 9/11, and is now considered increasingly hostile. Somehow, I don't think any peace will last as long as that man is in the White House.Oh, so if Bush goes away they won't be dangerous anymore?
That's kinda naive, don't you think?

Oh, so if Bush goes away they won't be dangerous anymore?
That's kinda naive, don't you think?

They're increasingly hostile because they know Bush means "you're next" when he "investigates" their connections of 9/11.

If Bush left, Iran has no reason to feel like they're going to become a mushroom cloud.

I think President Bush would have liked to be a peace president. In 2001 (before 9/11) his administration cut military spending as matter of fact. But history hasn´t allowed that to happen. The US was attacked by terrorists more brutally, more outrageously and more bloody than ever before. A reaction was necessary: the Taleban in Afghanistan were removed, which were directly linked with Al-Quaida and with the overthrowl of Saddam there is at least the vague opportunity for a better Iraq and for positive changes in the entire region. Libya gave up is WMD programs, Iran was ready for inspections. Probably the Iraq war prevents other wars from happening. It may work as a deterrent.

SADI ARABIA was the one how atacked the US on 9/11 not Iraq or afghanistan
and as longe as sadi arabia has us by the balls we are not going to do any thing
as in oil

I think President Bush would have liked to be a peace president. In 2001 (before 9/11) his administration cut military spending as matter of fact. But history hasn´t allowed that to happen. The US was attacked by terrorists more brutally, more outrageously and more bloody than ever before. A reaction was necessary: the Taleban in Afghanistan were removed, which were directly linked with Al-Quaida and with the overthrowl of Saddam there is at least the vague opportunity for a better Iraq and for positive changes in the entire region. Libya gave up is WMD programs, Iran was ready for inspections. Probably the Iraq war prevents other wars from happening. It may work as a deterrent.

Or when we go after Syria and Iran if Bush gets elected again, it could start two more wars. May work, may not.

SADI ARABIA was the one how atacked the US on 9/11 not Iraq or afghanistan
and as longe as sadi arabia has us by the balls we are not going to do any thing
as in oil

How easy do you want it to make yourself. Osama bin Laden has broken up ties with the House Saud in the early 90s. He wants to overthrow them. That´s the fact. He didn´t like the decision of King Fahd of 1990 to let the US in.
The Saudi government did not enough against terror due to the believe that the terrorists would spare them. That has been proven as nonsense. Saudi-Arabia was now attacked several times by Al-Quaida. It must be said that they increased their efforts in the fight against terror. It may still not be enough. But what is enough??? Can there be enough?? But it is important to see the progress in that field.

Or when we go after Syria and Iran if Bush gets elected again, it could start two more wars. May work, may not.

I don´t think that is going to happend since they are too many problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Actually Iran is conducting a dangerous needle picking policy against Britain and the US at the moment. That shows how difficult the situation is. There is a great danger that Iran tries to install a puppet regime in Iraq.

Yesterday the 900th American soldier died in Iraq, the 762nd since our Mission was Accomplished over a year ago. Never let it be said that George W. Bush doesn't know how to pick his moments, because he chose yesterday to announce that he wishes to be remembered as the "peace president."

According to Bush's address to a re-election rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, "Nobody wants to be the war president." An interesting statement, made more interesting by the fact that it is coming from a man who, on February 7th of this year, told NBC's Meet the Press that "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind."

Bush may have been jumping the gun (again) when he promised that "the next four years will be peaceful years," since that would require that American military presence in Iraq be completely absent within 4 months. Not even the most optimistic of strategists has proposed such a goal, leading one to wonder if perhaps Bush needs to don his flight suit again to win support for his theory that "peace" often involves American soldiers dying in combat.

Calling Dubya a 'peace President' is like calling Hitler a 'pro-Semitic' Chancellor.

Calling Dubya a 'peace President' is like calling Hitler a 'pro-Semitic' Chancellor.
Your comparison of the president of the United States with one of the worst dictators in human history is unacceptable. It is outrageous. Whould you respect that you are compared to Hitler, or any other leader of a democratic nation??
I wouldn´t regardless whether it is the president or prime minister of France, Britain, Germany or other democratic countries. It is unacceptable to compare the leader of any democratic nation with Hitler.

Actually, interesting comparison. Appointed leader of a supposedly democratic nation, whose party wins power without a majority of the votes...

The "we removed a terrible dictator" justification for Iraq is not legitimate unless the US makes an effort to fight oppression in every nation with a dictator as bad as saddam. But many of these dictatorships (e.g. Uzbekistan) are actually considered allies of the US, and receive American aid. So it's nothing more than rank hypocrisy.

But many of these dictatorships (e.g. Uzbekistan) are actually considered allies of the US, and receive American aid. So it's nothing more than rank hypocrisy.
So was Saddam at one point.

Exactly, and one of the main reasons he was able to commit atrocities worse than many other dictators was that he was armed by the US.

Actually, interesting comparison. Appointed leader of a supposedly democratic nation, whose party wins power without a majority of the votes...

The "we removed a terrible dictator" justification for Iraq is not legitimate unless the US makes an effort to fight oppression in every nation with a dictator as bad as saddam. But many of these dictatorships (e.g. Uzbekistan) are actually considered allies of the US, and receive American aid. So it's nothing more than rank hypocrisy.


So because you can´t do everything at the same time and you have in any case careful decide the options (the use of force should only be the last ressort) you shouldn´t do anything because you can´t do it every where else. Is that your argument? Well, it is a pretty weak argument. It´s like saying: because we can´t fix everything that is broken we shouldn´t fix anything. That is just a justification for non-action and for allowing dictators to continue their terrible rule

Exactly, and one of the main reasons he was able to commit atrocities worse than many other dictators was that he was armed by the US.
He wasn´t. The US didn´t sell arms to him DIRECTLY. In contrast to the Soviet Union, France (they almost got nukes because of France - by the way thanks to Jaques Chirac who was French prime minister in the late 1970s), partly Germany and - to a lesser degree - from countries who bought weapons from the US and then sold them further to Iraq.

Maybe he was talking to God again and learned something! :eek: ;)

Maybe he was talking to God again and learned something! :eek: ;)
Is it a good thing when a statesman hears voices? :p

So because you can´t do everything at the same time and you have in any case careful decide the options (the use of force should only be the last ressort) you shouldn´t do anything because you can´t do it every where else. Is that your argument? Well, it is a pretty weak argument. It´s like saying: because we can´t fix everything that is broken we shouldn´t fix anything. That is just a justification for non-action and for allowing dictators to continue their terrible rule

No, but you can't legitimately claim to be the saviour of oppressed peoples while you actively support Uzbekistan etc - I'm not demanding that they invade all the oppressive dictatorships, but that they at least express their disapproval of them.

No, but you can't legitimately claim to be the saviour of oppressed peoples while you actively support Uzbekistan etc - I'm not demanding that they invade all the oppressive dictatorships, but that they at least express their disapproval of them.

In order to fight against terrorism you need allies. You can´t choose them. You have to get all you can. In order to invade Afghanistan you needed Pakistan and Uzbekistan. That are facts. You may not like it, but you have to give those countries credit for their cooperation with the US, Britain and other countries of the coalition.

In order to fight against terrorism you need allies. You can´t choose them. You have to get all you can. In order to invade Afghanistan you needed Pakistan and Uzbekistan. That are facts. You may not like it, but you have to give those countries credit for their cooperation with the US, Britain and other countries of the coalition.

Let's apply that principle to another situation, shall we? Should the police team up with double murderer A, actively supporting him and refusing to arrest him, simply because they can use his help to catch serial killer B?

Let's apply that principle to another situation, shall we? Should the police team up with double murderer A, actively supporting him and refusing to arrest him, simply because they can use his help to catch serial killer B?
I thought that was already common practise. Maybe not with killers though.

Maybe not with killers though.

No not with killers. I can see how it might be legitimate to tolerate a petty criminal as, say, an informant to catch a serial killer, but not serious criminals, and certainly not to actively support them.

Come on: be realistic: Sometimes you have to work with one villain to stop another. Just think about World War II were Britain and the US were after all allied with the Soviet Union under Stalin.
But there was no other choice.

It does not matter whether the US government agrees or not with certain other countries and nations. It's none of their bussiness! Besides, do you think they actually care if some dictator in let's say, Uzbekistan, opresses his people? Why would they? The ONLY reason for direct involvement in the situation in the middle east is $money$. Money makes the world go round. The world of politics (national as well as international) anyway. But the point is, people in general (not just the politicians) are more or less stupid and unable to learn from their own mistakes, not to mention from history. Simple fact is that war is never a good solution in the long run, but who cares? We live (most of us) in various democratic countries, and we all know that elections are won by being the most popular candidate, not by making political moves that are smart, but take a long time to make a distinguishable difference. Positive consequences of your decisions must be visible within four years (presidential mandate), which is of course hard to accomplish, so it's a lot easier to "manufacture" successful actions via the mass media. That's one of the things that's wrong with democracy. Just look at the last elections in the US. Bush didn't really won! He blatantly stole votes in Florida (with help from Jeb), not allowing a large amount of black voters to exercise their right because they had the same names as some convicted citizens. He also admitted votes from oversee soldiers although they arrived too late. It's ridiculous! You call that democracy? I mean, some people don't realize that the world they're in is different from what they read in the papers. Words like "democracy" and "freedom" are just that, words. No more, no less. And very flexibile ones too. at that.

Actually, interesting comparison. Appointed leader of a supposedly democratic nation, whose party wins power without a majority of the votes...
And that's before we get into the calls of Republican supporters on here for the killing of innocent civilians to 'deter terrorism'.

Come on: be realistic: Sometimes you have to work with one villain to stop another. Just think about World War II were Britain and the US were after all allied with the Soviet Union under Stalin.
But there was no other choice.

Nobody attempted to justify that war on the basis of Hitler's human rights abuses. If there had been no other reason than Hitler's oppressive regime, then it would have been hypocritical to support Stalin whilst fighting Hitler.

Nobody attempted to justify that war on the basis of Hitler's human rights abuses. If there had been no other reason than Hitler's oppressive regime, then it would have been hypocritical to support Stalin whilst fighting Hitler.

I could claim than then the thing would probably going on the other way around. But lets stop speculating about that: history is history and it was as it was.

There were different reasons for the war against Iraq. One was the concern about the WMD programms? They may have been overestimated by the Intelligence services. But: It is a fact that Iraq possesed WMD. It is a fact that Iraqi scientist knew how to produce them. It is a fact that Iraq is potentially a very rich country. It was a fact that Iraq received money due to illegal oil smuggling through Iranian territory and the Kurdish territory to Turkey in the north and probably through Syria as well. It is a fact that there is growing demand for oil in the world. And it was a fact that the embargo was getting more and more an ineffective sword and would even more become so in the future. And due to this development the Iraqi regime would have been able to gain much more money, to restart its WMD programs and would be capable of posing a serious threat in 5 or 10 years, if the regime been allowed to stay in power. That is an entirely credible argument for me to go to war. Whether it was or is worth it is another question. But there is quite a lot justification of the war. It not that there was no reason for it: well, in a way they are too many reasons for it.

That's what the weapons inspectors were for.

Come on: be realistic: Sometimes you have to work with one villain to stop another. Just think about World War II were Britain and the US were after all allied with the Soviet Union under Stalin.
But there was no other choice.
Sure there was. they could have allied with Germany against Stalin. Afterall, for years Hitler was viewed as a chanpion against the evil commies.

That's what the weapons inspectors were for.

The inspections could not have continued for ever. As long as this regime was in power Iraq would have remained a very big problem.
Probally now - after the removal of the regime - it is possible to solve it and to promote positive changes in the region.

Is it a good thing when a statesman hears voices? :p
Yes because obviously only God talks to Heads of State. Ordinary mass-murders on the other hand....

Sure there was. they could have allied with Germany against Stalin. Afterall, for years Hitler was viewed as a chanpion against the evil commies.
No they couldn´t. They gave Poland and other countries assurances that they would defend their independence. After all: they of course didn´t want that Germany controlls the whole of continental Europe.
What happened in 1939 was in fact an alliance between Hitler and Stalin (Hitler-Stalin pact) in which they divided Eastern Europe between them. Hitler offered Stalin the land. The western powers were not able to offer either side anything since they didn´t want to betrayl their allies (after all they lead Czechoslovakia down - they didn´t want to do that to Poland. And they were right not to do that).

The inspections could not have continued for ever.

Why not? If they were kicked out, then there might be cause to offer an ultimatum, saying "Let them back in or we'll assume you have weapons and we'll invade".

No they couldn´t. They gave Poland and other countries assurances that they would defend their independence. After all: they of course didn´t want that Germany controlls the whole of continental Europe.
What happened in 1939 was in fact an alliance between Hitler and Stalin (Hitler-Stalin pact) in which they divided Eastern Europe between them. Hitler offered Stalin the land. The western powers were not able to offer either side anything since they didn´t want to betrayl their allies (after all they lead Czechoslovakia down - they didn´t want to do that to Poland. And they were right not to do that).
They should have declared war on the Soviets as well. Afterall Stalin also violated Poland whom they vowed to protect, like they did with Czechoslowakia.

Why not? If they were kicked out, then there might be cause to offer an ultimatum, saying "Let them back in or we'll assume you have weapons and we'll invade".

In order to maintain the thread you need a lot of troops to be present. That´s very costly. Futhernmore. An continued uncertainty would have been damaging to the world economy. The situation Septemer 2002 till the begining was already damaging enough. It was necessary to take a decision.
So the inspections had to be completed and not going on indefinately. And there would have been the need for credible assurances that Iraq is not restarting the programs. But Iraqs leadership had no credibility.
I mean: let´s be honest. The decision to overthrow the regime was taken even before the UN was consulted on the matter. After 9/11 the US wanted just to finish the unfinished business in Iraq.

history is history and it was as it was.

wrong.

history is history and it was as they want you to believe as it was.

i won't comment on the rest of your comments as it's hard to discuss with brainwashed people who rely on cnn news.

they invided iraq to fight terrorism? yea...riiiiight...
their mission is accomplished when iraqi children have burgers and a coke in their lunch boxes while their dads earn their money pumping oil to finance their brand new ford suv. damn, they're gonna be so happy!

i heard a very interesting quote once regarding global violennce:

terrorism is the war of the poor. war is the terrorism of the rich.

They should have declared war on the Soviets as well. Afterall Stalin also violated Poland whom they vowed to protect, like they did with Czechoslowakia.


They needed an ally against Hitler at least for the future to open a new front. The victory over him was also possible due to the Soviets and their eastern front.
I wonder how the landing in the Normandy or in Southern Italy would have been possible if the Germans were able to concentrate all the troops over there instead of having to fight against the soviets (which were supported with material by the US).
After all: France collapsed in 1940 after six weeks. Britain needed all the help it could get- from the US as well as from the Soviets. That´s the fact. Sometimes you have to ally with one villain to defend yourself against another one and to free the world of his tyranny.

wrong.
history is history and it was as they want you to believe as it was.
i won't comment on the rest of your comments as it's hard to discuss with brainwashed people who rely on cnn news.
they invided iraq to fight terrorism? yea...riiiiight...
their mission is accomplished when iraqi children have burgers and a coke in their lunch boxes while their dads earn their money pumping oil to finance their brand new ford suv. damn, they're gonna be so happy!
i heard a very interesting quote once regarding global violennce:
terrorism is the war of the poor. war is the terrorism of the rich.
.
Well, first of all I´m not American, I´m not brainwashed, I don´t rely on CNN only (which is by the way much better than other american networks like Fox news which I can´t watch and don´t want to actually). I didn´t say that Iraq was linked to Al-Quaida. So read my posts before you accuse me of something. And your last statement is rubbish. It is not the poorest of the poor who use terrorism. Then we would phase a terrorist thread from Africa.
It were middle or even upper class arabs - sons of rich families - who formed Al-Quaida who comitted the attrocities of 9/11 and others.
So stick to the facts and don´t make facts up.
It is radical Islam - a fanatic ideology which is the basis of this terrorism.
And this ideology is on the rise since the 1970s. That are the facts.

The war in iraq is not really about iraq, it is a chess move in preparation for activity much further down the line.

The House of Saud is an evil, corrupt regime that has and does fund terrorism against infidels (beleiving all non-muslims inferior). It is also on the verge of collapse, mainly due to lack of human rights or quality of life for any Saudi who is not a member of the 20,000 strong Royal family.

Here is the big problem no.1: For years the House of Saud and various other muslim dictatorships have blamed this poverty of life for normal citizens on the west, breeding a hatred to re-direct anger away from their own misuse of power. As a result most of the population of Saudi hate the West and Osama Bin Laden is there numero uno superstar hero.

If the House of Saud fell tomorrow Osama and his Al Qaeda mob would have the keys to the country and all the resource that goes with it. Oops...

Big problem no.2: Saudi is the only real military base the US/UK have in the middle east. So just imagine the scenario if Saddam was in iraq and the House of Saud fell resulting in US/UK epulsion. The coalition would have no base in the area, with Al Qaeda running riot.

Of course there would also be no oil from Iraq or Saudi.

Resolution: remove one evil dictator in Iraq giving new base, this would also mean for the first time US could pressure Saudi on human rights etc as it would not be as strategically important as before, therefore hopefully preventing fall of Saudi. However, if Al Qaeda did obtain the country the US/UK would be ideally positioned to fix the issue.

History shows us that in last 100 years virtually all wars have involved some autocratic dictatorship and that is because you can't negotiate with dictatorships, it is often one mans whim. The only way to true world peace is to remove all dictatorships and have all states democratic. Take the European example after WW2, war between the powers of Europe is no longer unlikely but unthinkable. So Bush could be a man of peace if he had the balls to remove all dictatorships and free the people one by one whether they have Oil or not. eg. Zimbabwe.

Sadly I think Bush will show freedom and peace is not his intenton, just safeguarding US and Oil.

In order to maintain the thread you need a lot of troops to be present. That´s very costly.

And occupation isn't?

Futhernmore. An continued uncertainty would have been damaging to the world economy. The situation Septemer 2002 till the begining was already damaging enough. It was necessary to take a decision.

So we did go to war because of money...

I still don't see why we couldn't have maintained the inspections programs.