NationStates Jolt Archive

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?

Well, no. He's still a total loser who cheated his way to the power. And thousands and thousands of iraqi dead (plus two thousand+ dead soldiers) is not anything I'll forget soon.

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?
Not a hero. Maybe just lucky. After all, he's been pretty lucky his whole life.

Well, no. He's still a total loser who cheated his way to the power. And thousands and thousands of iraqi dead (plus two thousand+ dead soldiers) is not anything I'll forget soon.

he didn't cheat, that's just some rubbish michael moore will have you believe.

He is neither a monster nor a hero.

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?
Well, if turning a horrible, secular dictatorial mockey of a democracy into an America supported, Islamic dictatorial mockery of democracy is a good thing, he is definately a hero.

Well, if turning a horrible, secular dictatorial mockey of a democracy into an America supported, Islamic dictatorial mockery of democracy is a good thing, he is definately a hero.
I'm afraid some people are bringing their preconceptions along. The premise of this poll was that Bush succeeds in turning Iraq into a true democracy, not whether he'll succeed or not.

I'm afraid some people are bringing their preconceptions along. The premise of this poll was that Bush succeeds in turning Iraq into a true democracy, not whether he'll succeed or not.

Whoops, missed that bit. In that case, then yes, he would be a hero. A flawed hero, but a hero nonetheless.

he didn't cheat, that's just some rubbish michael moore will have you believe.

He didn't cheat, he had people like Katherine Harris do it for him. ;)

Look up your history of the election. Had Gore asked the SCOTUS to re-count the entire state of Florida he would of been president, bad legal advice I guess, he only lost because he only wanted certain parts of the state re-counted and those are the grounds he lost on, I can give you a link to the written opinion if you'd like.

Although it wasn't even really the re-count that would of made the difference. Katherine Harris committed fraud. That has pretty much been proven even though she has never been charged with it. However why would one not be surprised by Bush's brother not having her charged? lol

Prepare to burn...

Not a hero. Maybe just lucky. After all, he's been pretty lucky his whole life.

Ain't that the truth. All those DUI's and not one time did he have a fatal crash or die of alcohol poisoning.

Although it wasn't even really the re-count that would of made the difference. Katherine Harris committed fraud. That has pretty much been proven even though she has never been charged with it. However why would one not be surprised by Bush's brother not having her charged? lol

If she hasn't been charged, indicted, or even remotely investigated she never committed fraud. Obviously, no one's found any real evidence to convict her so she didn't commit anything legally defined as fraud.

Ain't that the truth. All those DUI's and not one time did he have a fatal crash or die of alcohol poisoning.
True, plus being born into the right family. Every time he failed in business his family's friends bailed him out. Plus he never got arrested or convicted for cocaine AFAIK. To top it all off, he didn't have to go to vietnam.

No president is really a true hero. All of them have done stupid things and made mistakes. There have been good presidents, but no true heroes. If (a definite if, of course) these things succeed, Bush would be a good president. Not the best, but definitely up there.

True, plus being born into the right family. Every time he failed in business his family's friends bailed him out. Plus he never got arrested or convicted for cocaine AFAIK. To top it all off, he didn't have to go to vietnam.

That's the best thing about being a powerful political family. Now, if we could get the Kennedys and the Bushes to intermarry, they'd be unstoppable.

Hero? Hmm, Patriot Act, Guantanimo Bay, going to Iraq in the first place, attempted suppression of the media/protest (i.e. the Plame investigation, Free Speech Zones, administration policy against dissent within the administration), push for greater integration of religion into politics (school vouchers for private schools enven though they're private for a reason, push for Consitutional amendment against gay marraige, and why is Harriet Miers qualified? She's religious), blatant cronyism (Miers, Brown for example, he's not even trying to hide it), disregard for international law (torture which is leaking too commonly to be one bad apple, treaties like on tariffs, attempting to have the CIA exempt from the torture ban)...I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

To me, that's worse than zero. Ends don't automatically justify the means, and he's done too much other stuff I disagree with that even if he did suceed, it wouldn't have been worth it. Not that I think Gore or Kerry would qualify as heros either, just not quite as negative.

That's the best thing about being a powerful political family. Now, if we could get the Kennedys and the Bushes to intermarry, they'd be unstoppable.
Stop it. You're scaring me. I'm going to have nightmares for weeks on end now.

He’s done a pretty good job and he has given terrorism a good run for its money

He’s done a pretty good job and he has given terrorism a good run for its money
Which is why the insurgency has been slowing down and bombings have lessened...

What do you consider to be a pretty good job?

Stop it. You're scaring me. I'm going to have nightmares for weeks on end now.

Got to prepare for the future...this ranks up there with Skynet as most likely to destroy the world.

Hero? Hmm, Patriot Act, Guantanimo Bay, going to Iraq in the first place, attempted suppression of the media/protest (i.e. the Plame investigation, Free Speech Zones, administration policy against dissent within the administration), push for greater integration of religion into politics (school vouchers for private schools enven though they're private for a reason, push for Consitutional amendment against gay marraige, and why is Harriet Miers qualified? She's religious), blatant cronyism (Miers, Brown for example, he's not even trying to hide it), disregard for international law (torture which is leaking too commonly to be one bad apple, treaties like on tariffs, attempting to have the CIA exempt from the torture ban)...I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

To me, that's worse than zero. Ends don't automatically justify the means, and he's done too much other stuff I disagree with that even if he did suceed, it wouldn't have been worth it. Not that I think Gore or Kerry would qualify as heros either, just not quite as negative.

You forgot he married a murderer. His wife killed someone drunk driving in high school (he was a star athlete too) and paid off the family so that she got off.


Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?

I'd say Bush got lucky if everything turns out not a hero.

The ends do not ever kjustify the means. You can't do evil and expect praise. Otherwise Hitler would be praised for all his good deeds like turning Germany around, but he is not because of the Halocaust.

You forgot he married a murderer. His wife killed someone drunk driving in high school (he was a star athlete too) and paid off the family so that she got off.

Ted Kennedy seems to have done something quite similar...

The ends do not ever kjustify the means. You can't do evil and expect praise. Otherwise Hitler would be praised for all his good deeds like turning Germany around, but he is not because of the Halocaust.
I'd say Hitler left Germany in a much worse position than it was when he became Fuhrer, which is part of the reason he's not fondly remembered. Also, comparing the Holocaust with the current events is:

a) a cliche;

b) unrealistic.

Ted Kennedy seems to have done something quite similar...
Yes but someone else's faults don't excuse anothers.

Who said I care for Ted? If he did actually do it (Laura write in it a book I saw on Oprah) than he should be punished.

Yes but someone else's faults don't excuse anothers.

Who said I care for Ted? If he did actually do it (Laura write in it a book I saw on Oprah) than he should be punished.

No, they don't.

But too many people (not you, just in general) try to get the Bushes for having this influence but totally disregard the Kennedys' own sordid past.

IF...IF....IF...Bushnam becomes a true democracy. Is Bush a hero?

If pigs had wings they could fly.

Hero? For sending young men and women to do what he didn't have the guts to do himslf?

Buying a "ranch" and a pair of boots doesn't make you a cowboy.

What is it going to take to make Bushnam a "democracy"? In order for any government to stand, nearly all of the people must refuse to fight. 90% support to the point of not fighting is not enough. Just think if only 5% of the US decided to fight the US government. That would be 15,000,000 people. Could the US government stand if 15,000,000 people decided to take up arms? I doubt it. What makes anyone think that with 60% support and at least 25% willing to either fight or support the fighters, that the government can stand.

The optomistic outcome would be a new dictator picked out by the US that would control the country and hold out radicals. Of course the US would have to overlook the things the new dictator would have to do in order to end opposition and stop the fighting.

OK, Mr/Ms Good Life, the premise is that Iraq becomes a true democracy. If you want to proove it won't, start a new thread on that topic. If you post on this thread, please accept this premise. Also remember that far more people had died in the American War of Independence than in Iraq, and yet the Americans don't consider the ends didn't justify the sacrifices.

Also remember that far more people had died in the American War of Independence than in Iraq, and yet the Americans don't consider the ends didn't justify the sacrifices.
Invalid comparison.

The technology levels of today allow conflict without requiring the same amount of combatants in the field, lowering the likelyhood of casualties.

The American Revolutionary War had the Americans as the underpowered group; they were supposed to take heavier casualties. In the Iraq conflict, it is the other way around. The one-sidedness of the firepower indicates that the coalition shouldn't be taking that many casualties. Especially after the results of the Persian Gulf War in '91.

In most American's eyes, the Revolutionary War was thought to be done for a just cause. The Iraq War isn't, so there is less tolerance. Same reason WWII casualty levels didn't affect the war effort but Vietnam casualty levels began leading to protests. That and both Iraq and Vietnam were accompanied with gov't lies/half truths that were found out during the course of the war.

One final factor is the level of medicine and health procedures, then they had almost none outside of alcohol.

If she hasn't been charged, indicted, or even remotely investigated she never committed fraud. Obviously, no one's found any real evidence to convict her so she didn't commit anything legally defined as fraud.


Oh there have been numerous investigations, just not by the police. I have DVD after DVD of documentaries on the subject. It more than meets the burden of proof. But surely you didn't expect Jeb to investigate Katherine Harris and chance losing the presidency for his brother? Nepotism at it's finest. Oh and no, none of the documentaries I have were done by Michael Moore.

If pigs had wings they could fly.

What if they turn out like Penguins? They have wings but can't fly...

Hero? For sending young men and women to do what he didn't have the guts to do himslf?

Yes that is the premise :p

If she hasn't been charged, indicted, or even remotely investigated she never committed fraud. Obviously, no one's found any real evidence to convict her so she didn't commit anything legally defined as fraud.
You do know that if you get away with fraud it is still nothing less than fraud? I mean... you're not in the special class or anything, right?

meh. more of a .4. he's had to deal with alot of crap that previous presidents haven't.

I'm afraid some people are bringing their preconceptions along. The premise of this poll was that Bush succeeds in turning Iraq into a true democracy, not whether he'll succeed or not.
It took me a minute to decipher your little Enigma code there, but speaking of bringing preconceptions to the table..

still a zero. The end does not justify the means.

Still a crappy president. Fixing the mess you made doesn't make you altruistic, it means you made a mess and cleaned it up.

Bush will never be a hero unless he becomes someone completely new and utterly unlike the corrupt, nepotist, lying sack of shit he is now.

George Bush a hero? pfft! he just wants to out-do his father to make sure history remembers George W over George H. unfortunatly for him, it is going to end up being for the wrong reasons

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?

Hmm, do the ends justify the means?

I dont care how the war (although they generally have 2 combatent sides) transpires, hes still thoroughly deplorable.

You do know that if you get away with fraud it is still nothing less than fraud? I mean... you're not in the special class or anything, right?

Yes, but there's never been any indictment or investigation, and it's not like she's been obstructing an investigation or destroying evidence, so there's obviously no crime committed.

Bush blew it, plain and simple. He's let down everyone from the religious right to the fiscally conservative. At one point, it seemed like the sky was the limit.
Now it seems like the limit was the sky. He sorta ran out of "golden boy" gasoline shortly after his reelection. He'll be far from remembered as a great (or even good) president.

Invalid comparison.

The technology levels of today allow conflict without requiring the same amount of combatants in the field, lowering the likelyhood of casualties.

The American Revolutionary War had the Americans as the underpowered group; they were supposed to take heavier casualties. In the Iraq conflict, it is the other way around. The one-sidedness of the firepower indicates that the coalition shouldn't be taking that many casualties. Especially after the results of the Persian Gulf War in '91.

In most American's eyes, the Revolutionary War was thought to be done for a just cause. The Iraq War isn't, so there is less tolerance. Same reason WWII casualty levels didn't affect the war effort but Vietnam casualty levels began leading to protests. That and both Iraq and Vietnam were accompanied with gov't lies/half truths that were found out during the course of the war.

One final factor is the level of medicine and health procedures, then they had almost none outside of alcohol.


Actually, you're the one that has made an incorrect comparison. The '91 Gulf War was an entirely different affair than the invasion of Iraq. I was never in favor of it, but that's beside the point.
The American War of Independence has more in common with Iraq than you'd think, but just reverse positions. The Americans never planned to "win" then, all they needed to do was to hold out until British support at home collapsed, which it did, explaining why Cornwallis never recieved much in the way of reinforcement. Ever. In Iraq, the fighters just have to do the exact same thing. And they're using the same tactics as the Americans once did. Guerilla warfare.

This type of fighting minimizes any technological advantage, which brings combatants to a more even playing field. In the '91 war, the two sides fought standard field battles, with urban warfare and guerilla tactics almost non-existent. Now, we're fighting mostly in cities, against pockets of armed men dressed as civilians. Now compare this to the 1770's. Small groups of armed civilians (American farmers and others) roaming the countryside (there were no real urban areas at the time), shooting up the British and running off before a response could be mounted. Now, we all say that IEDs are a despicable way of fighting. Then, the British claimed that the American tactic of picking off officers with skirmishers was despicable.

Are you starting to see the similarities?

If you look back through history, this type of conflict is repeated time and time again. A technologically superior army is caught up in guerilla combat which it is not trained to deal with. The Boer War, the Mau-mau Insurrection, the American War of Independence, Vietnam, the First Indochina War, the Malayan Emergency, the Algerian War, Rhodesia, Guinea, Angola, Mozambique, the list goes on and on. Sometimes the bigger army learns how to deal and eventually puts down the guerillas, but more often than not, public opinion of the war drops too fast, and they are forced to pull out, even if they are succeeding.

And are there any more lies in Iraq than there were in WWII? Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or else there wouldn't be enough support for a move for war. Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed so that the Germans wouldn't know that their code had been broken.

And yet, Roosevelt is on the dime, and Churchill is placed next to Lord Nelson as one of Britain's greatest heroes. Bush has made too many other mistakes to be called a hero, but if he succeeds in Iraq, that'll put him at about neutral in my book of presidents.

And you gotta love my triple post...

Yes, but there's never been any indictment or investigation, and it's not like she's been obstructing an investigation or destroying evidence, so there's obviously no crime committed.
We might need to go over the phrase "getting away with" then.

Total zero. Cares nothing for equality and human rights, the deficit is god-awful, and No Child Left Behind is a joke.

Actually, you're the one that has made an incorrect comparison. The '91 Gulf War was an entirely different affair than the invasion of Iraq.
No, I haven't, I know that they're different affairs. But the question is, does the general public perceive it that way? I would bet on no, which was the whole point of the reply. When one side is used to roling over an opponent with minimal perceived cost, when it doesn't happen the public thinks it's a disaster, even if it's a different type of contest.

Are you starting to see the similarities?
I'm quite aware of the similarities. There are also some key differences, as well, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be better reserved for a different thread, if at all.

And are there any more lies in Iraq than there were in WWII? Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or else there wouldn't be enough support for a move for war. Churchill allowed Coventry to be bombed so that the Germans wouldn't know that their code had been broken.That and both Iraq and Vietnam were accompanied with gov't lies/half truths that were found out during the course of the war.
Note my careful wording (emphasis added). I'm well aware that the "good guys" pulled crap during other conflicts. It's just that it wasn't well known while the conflict was going, so it didn't detrimentally affect public opinion.

Hopefully I didn't sound too arrogant in the reply.

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?

He is an president with average skills trying to do great things that require great skills. Even if Iraq is a success in the end, he will still be seen as such.

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?
And right after that, Michael Moore will win the Presidency!!:D

And right after that, Michael Moore will win the Presidency!!Damn it! Thanks a lot. That's another week or so of nightmares.

he's not really either. But, he's more toward the "hero" side. Let's face it, he didn't do anything so TERRIBLY wrong. A lot of people are pissed cause of Iraq, but lets not forget, Saddam massacred people...at least Bush isn't doing that.

Sure, if Iraq becomes a true democracy, that'd endear Bush to Iraqis (the soldiers, ours and theirs, would be the heroes, but Bush would be respected). However, liberal Americans would simply write off Iraq as not being worth the effort, making any success moot. "Sure, Iraq's a democracy, but we had no business there," etc. Iraqi rights or freedom don't really figure into it.

Right now, the war on terror and the Iraq bombings seem to have no end in sight. However, let's consider that the war on terror is won by the US and that Iraq becomes a viable democracy.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?

i agree with the war on terror and i also understand that innocent people die in wars,as well as the combatants.
i feel this war (on terror..not neccasarily iraq)is needed before it ends up on everyone in the west's doorstep.

that said....bush is a liar,a cheat,and couldnt give a rats ass about the average person,let alone a poor person.
he is concerned only in padding the profits of his corporate sponsors and catering to the religous far right to get elected.
he may from time to time throw the peasants a bone to keep us placated,but imho he is concerned with the power elite(or he is just there puppet)

to sum up....i agree that we should hunt down every murdering lunatic/brainwashed fanatic.

however...doing what needs to be done does not make bush a hero...does anyone think that any president(dem/repub/libertarian/constitutional party)would have just looked the other way after 911?
hell,if i was president when that happened,i would have just went to my defense sec. or the chairman of the joint chiefs and said...you have an enormous budget to defend this country..you have a massive intelligence apparatus that is the largest in the world! FIND out who is responsible for this and crush them into dust...then find out who funds them,and then deal with them!

bush a hero? hardly,anyone with a half of a brain would have reacted quite violently to 911 and used our enormous military and clandestine services to full effect.

ironically,it actually worked in bushes favor that that atrocity occured...he would have probably lost the next election without this "war"

maybe obl and bush are in cahoots..lol..j/k...but it sure helped bush in a way:(

Whoops, missed that bit. In that case, then yes, he would be a hero. A flawed hero, but a hero nonetheless.


okay,i would agree if iraq becomes a fledgeling democracy in a region of despots...then yes he did good,and actually helped some people...haliburton as well, but well worth it for the average iraqi's future.

If that were the case, would you consider Bush a hero or not? Why? Why not?
Rest assured that if it came about, it would be purely coincidental and would have nothing to do with Bush.

In that case if you really wanted to say thanks, you would have to thank the architects of the war, who you will find on this website. But before you do, read their goals and strategies, and think long and hard about whether you want to condone that kind of thing.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

No, I haven't, I know that they're different affairs. But the question is, does the general public perceive it that way? I would bet on no, which was the whole point of the reply. When one side is used to roling over an opponent with minimal perceived cost, when it doesn't happen the public thinks it's a disaster, even if it's a different type of contest.


I'm quite aware of the similarities. There are also some key differences, as well, but for the purposes of this discussion, I think it would be better reserved for a different thread, if at all.


Note my careful wording (emphasis added). I'm well aware that the "good guys" pulled crap during other conflicts. It's just that it wasn't well known while the conflict was going, so it didn't detrimentally affect public opinion.

Hopefully I didn't sound too arrogant in the reply.

Ah, I misunderstood what you were trying to say. In that case, yes, you're right. Very right

Neither.

I recently attended a Jewish youth group event. The theme was "heroes". We determined that a hero is someone who takes great personal risks to help others. Bush has not done so. He would be deserving of respect, but not a hero. The heroes are the American and Iraqi - ESPECIALLY Iraqi - soldiers who are putting their lives on the line every day.

Rest assured that if it came about, it would be purely coincidental and would have nothing to do with Bush.

In that case if you really wanted to say thanks, you would have to thank the architects of the war, who you will find on this website. But before you do, read their goals and strategies, and think long and hard about whether you want to condone that kind of thing.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Yeah, clearly it was Jeb Bush and Dan Quayle.. they orchestrated the whole thing.. Bush had nothing to do with it by appointing Cheney and Rumsfeld.. ;)

Sure, if Iraq becomes a true democracy, that'd endear Bush to Iraqis (the soldiers, ours and theirs, would be the heroes, but Bush would be respected). However, liberal Americans would simply write off Iraq as not being worth the effort, making any success moot. "Sure, Iraq's a democracy, but we had no business there," etc. Iraqi rights or freedom don't really figure into it.

Wow.

What a lot of one-sided horse crap.

Thing is, we DONT have any business there.
Never really did.
In fact, if youve been watching the news lately, you can see that all of the lies and deciet that went into starting this war, is finally coming back to bite Bush in the ass.

Sure, it would be nice if Iraq was a real democracy, wherein everyone was entitled to a vote.
But, how "free" are a people that have a government forced upon them, by another government?
Not at all.
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.

Please, dont attempt to imply that Liberals dont care about the rights of Iraqi's, and try to imply that Conservatives do.
If that were true, maybe martial law wouldnt have been declared immediately after we took over.

If we truly cared about the rights of the Iraqi's, we would have had solid evidence of terrorism, or even the ability to conduct terrorism, before we invaded.

So, as far as Bush being a "hero"...

If a hero represents the rich, and powerful, and their objectives only, while basically ignoring those who support him, then sure, Bush qualifies.

Please, dont attempt to imply that Liberals dont care about the rights of Iraqi's, and try to imply that Conservatives do.


Individual compassion doesn't figure into it. If Bush stabilizes Iraq and installs true democracy, which we're assuming here, in this thread at least, his opponents will downplay and belittle that event. Bush will be gone and retired, but anyone arguing Afghanistan or Iraq as supporting intervention in some form will be swiftly told that neither were true successes because ____, or that the same won't be possible in Nation-X because, unlike Iraq, Nation-X [some reason Nation-X won't accept democracy]. It's not compassion, it's political efficacy. If Bush succeeds, his success wasn't success. If we elect a Republican in '08 who is thought of as being weak on defense, maybe it'll be a Democrat arguing Iraq as a precedent in '12.. same thing happened with some notable post-Reagan Dem candidates who took a pro-military stance to appeal to Reagan Democrats.. it goes both ways.

he's not really either. But, he's more toward the "hero" side. Let's face it, he didn't do anything so TERRIBLY wrong. A lot of people are pissed cause of Iraq, but lets not forget, Saddam massacred people...at least Bush isn't doing that.

You don't seem to be getting the same news as most. If I remember correctly, Bushnam loses are at 80,000+. Then there are unknown number of tortured people scattered around the globe.

Suppose a miracle does happen and all the parents, siblings, spouses, aunts, uncles and cousins forgive all of those deaths, and Bushnam becomes the world's most outstanding democracy. What about the reputation of the US throughout the world. We tell our children that a good reputation is hard to get, easy to lose, and impossible to recover. Making war for no reason. Lying to the world, showing that any future evidence we offer cannot be trusted. Torture of prisoners. Having prisoners "disappear" never to be seen again. Ignoring the advice of nearly every friend. Pulling the friends that do go along into the mud. Calling friends nasty names and abusing them for not agreeing with you.

When Kennedy sent evidence of missles in Cuba to our friends, they didn't even look at it. Their attitude was, if the US says it's true, their word is good enough.

What is the reputation of a Hero? What is the word of a Hero worth? How does a Hero handle TRUST? How does a Hero handle his friends? How does a Hero handle his enemies? (Especially a "religious" hero--What has happened to the reputation of "Christians"--not just the nation)

The "ends" don't repair the loss of trust in the US to "do the right thing".

You don't seem to be getting the same news as most. If I remember correctly, Bushnam loses are at 80,000+. Then there are unknown number of tortured people scattered around the globe.
But how many people would have died had Saddan remained dictator? Many, I'm sure, but I'm also sure the news about those deaths would have appeared on the 97th page of an obscure nespaper. After all, there are many countries where the human rights are not respected, and yet I don't see them appearing in the news.

Suppose a miracle does happen and all the parents, siblings, spouses, aunts, uncles and cousins forgive all of those deaths, and Bushnam becomes the world's most outstanding democracy. What about the reputation of the US throughout the world.
IMHO, the US reputation would be enhanced. You'd be seen as a strong country, which can achieve its objectives, but which also respects its principles.

I'm sure it would have been much easier just to replace Saddam with a pro-US dictator than to attempt to establish democracy in the region. However, I see Bush pursuing a policy which, in the long run, might prove better for the Iraqi people.

Pulling the friends that do go along into the mud. Calling friends nasty names and abusing them for not agreeing with you.
That's a bit exagerated, but I agree the whole 'Freedom Fries' and French bashing thing was unnecessary. This sort of actions can only alienate your allies, certinly not bring them closer to you. I must add, however, that I don't remember Bush supporting the actions you mentioned.

The "ends" don't repair the loss of trust in the US to "do the right thing".
I'll propose you a scenario. Let's say you live in a very oppresive dictatorship. A foreign power comes in, removes the dictator from power and brings democracy to your country. For several years, your country is not pacified and tens of thousand of people die, but in the end the terrorists are defeated and you can live pecefully in a democratic state.

A few years after that, a miracle happens and God gives you the power to change history. You can either choose to save the lives of the tens of thousands of people who have died, by deciding your former dictator was never removed from power and you still live in a dictatorship; or you can choose not to change anything. What would you do?

Ted Kennedy seems to have done something quite similar...
Very good point indeed.....

Damn it! Thanks a lot. That's another week or so of nightmares.

The day Michael Moore becomes president is the day I'll join the N.R.A., get a long range rifle with a high powered scope and dedicate the rest of my life to using his fat *ss for target practice.

Perhaps we could get Michael Moore to mediate the situation in France between the government of France and the rioters.....?

Now that would be amusing.

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq:

Somewhere between 26 931 and 30 318, according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Even given the premise that the war on terror somehow is won, and Iraq becomes a democracy, then you have to look at the broader consequences. And what if the majority in this new Iraqi democracy decides that Iraq should be a theocracy like its neighbour Iran? What if the majority favours Sharia-law?

Bush could have prepeared better for post-invation Iraq, thereby minimizing civilian casualties and the destruction the country has suffered since the fall of Saddam.

He could have gone to war with a grand coalition, but has instead alienated many of his allies, and caused Americas standing in the world to fall. He also could have made sure that torture and abuse wasn't tolerated by american soldiers, and that they themselves didn't torture or abuse.


He could have supported the UN (for example by giving weapons-inspectors more time) but chose to violate international law by taking unilateral military action against Iraq, and thereby causing a further destabilization of the organization.

I would not call Bush a hero in any sense of the word, no.

Sure, if Iraq becomes a true democracy, that'd endear Bush to Iraqis (the soldiers, ours and theirs, would be the heroes, but Bush would be respected). However, liberal Americans would simply write off Iraq as not being worth the effort, making any success moot. "Sure, Iraq's a democracy, but we had no business there," etc. Iraqi rights or freedom don't really figure into it.
America isn't even a true democracy. It is a democratic republic and the evolution of the American political scene is moving to put a stake into its heart. There is about a 20% chance that Iraq will turn into a functioning and fair democracy.

I read some article that the US pull out of Iraq, let the people have a civil war, and come back in after everyone's "settled their disputes like America in its Civil War." Wow, that is not even applicable to this circumstance. We didn't have death squads out killing people in the streets.

But, anyhow, I think that the US is looking for too much centeralisation. If you look at the region, Mesopotamia, essentially Iraq, it has always been fairly decentralised with people going to the bigger cities. And the Kurds have always been fiercly independent. So, what ever happens, its not what the US planned it to be. But it still can be a democracy ruled by religious fanatics. Sounds a lot like the environment back home, eh?

No religious fanatic can be a Hero

To be honest, if Iraq did wind up as an ideal state, I'd be more inclined to regard Bush as the inventor of the flying pig than as a hero...

What are the US doing in Iraq?

*WARNING* These images are the effect of the USA MDWs over civilian population, so this images are +18 *WARNING*

http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/slideshow.asp?gallery=1&id=2
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/slideshow.asp?gallery=1&id=5
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/slideshow.asp?gallery=1&id=7

Do you understand what do I mean when I talk about genocide? Does anybody dare to justify this vomitive actions? Are you going to call the guys who threw the bombs "heros"? ARE YOU SO INMORALE?