| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| A What if senario | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 17 2003, 08:13 PM (462 Views) | |
| Cool Vulcan | Nov 17 2003, 08:13 PM Post #1 |
|
Captain
|
Ok, I have read a few posts here reguarding the war, Bush, and anti-Americanisim. I got to thinking what would've happened if it was democratic President was in office and he did everything that Bush and Blair have done so far. Here is a little what if senario Just say, a Democratic President was the current President. We will call him William S. Thomas. He was elected in 2000, beating Bush. The events of 2001 had been good and suddenly the attack of the World Trade Tower and Pentigon happened as it did. Thomas then declared war on Terrior, Afgainastan was freed for Tatblin, he then puts two and two together and sees that Bin Laden and Saddam Hussian are in company of attacking the westren instrests. Thomas asks Blair to help fight. Here is where you can say what would've happened. Would the UN back Thomas and Blair? Would many liberals get all snitty over freeing another country and removing a dictator? I hope this make sense. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 17 2003, 09:10 PM Post #2 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I am sorry Gabe, but your post looks suspiciously like trolling. Exactly what kind of response were you hoping for? By posting such an exclusionary post, the only response that I see your post encouraging is anger from the left side of the political spectrum. If a liberal on this site posted the same, but flipped the story and asked if the Conservatives would get all snitty (instead of being supportive)…I would expect a flaming yelling match would probably ensue as well. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 17 2003, 09:13 PM Post #3 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
I think that the scenario would be very much the same that it is now. Why? Russia, France, and Germany. Their leaders, as with the UK remain unchanged, therefore their national interests remain voiced the same way. All this assume is that we carry out the course of action and invade Iraq as in the real world. A better question would be along the lines of: Would we have invaded Iraq as we did in the real world under fictional a Democrat President or would we have decided that without UN support we could not go forward after all? Assuming we went forward regardless of UN witholding its support (as in the real world) would the Republicans be as harsh on the Democrat at this point? Yes they would, but they might be more about attacking on the economy than military actions (though they might well criticize methods of operation, they would not be calling for a return to the UN for more help). We would not have had the types of tax cuts we have had under Bush, so they might well be calling for more tax cuts than President Thomas would handing out. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 17 2003, 09:38 PM Post #4 |
|
Lieutenant
|
From my knowledge of the post war presidents, I can't think of anyone who would have done what Bush has done in Iraq, the UN, etc. Not Reagan, not Nixon. It is pretty much impossible to try and transplant people and events into other times, probably the most plausible would be Reagan being the most recent. However, I can't believe President Reagan would have invaded Iraq, or if so, he certainly would have made a better job of it. I have alot of respect for President Reagan - he achieved his goals with the minimum of violence and by maintaining international dialogue and pressure " Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall !" President Reagan was a self made man with life experience behind him - the current President pales in comparison. For the 650,145,248th time, this poster at least, and I think most people around the world are the same, ARE certainly anti Bush, but not anti American. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 17 2003, 09:46 PM Post #5 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
There is an important difference here Nz. The events of September 2001 are much more akin to December 1941 than any other event since the end of WWII for the US. We can never know what Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, or Clinton would have done in a similar circumstance. Gabe has, I think wisely, used a completely fictional Democrat for this little mental exercise because we cannot even know what would have occrred under a Gore administration. (sidenote to 24: It is a provocative post in many ways, but I think it is a relatively benign one. Now, that new seasonal avatar...
)
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Nov 17 2003, 10:02 PM Post #6 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
With all due respect Swidden…you wouldn’t understand how I view this post because you hail from the right side of the political spectrum. If you were viewing this post for the first time, but with the conservative twist that I mentioned…then your reaction to the post might have been entirely different. Stay tuned…my avatar will change on a regular basis throughout the Holiday Season. :turkey:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 17 2003, 10:03 PM Post #7 |
|
Admiral
|
Gabe: It depends, does William S. Thomas have the same history of lying that Bush has? (Before someone accuses me, this is not meant to be a troll, but an honest question. Bush's lying is well-documented and gives me a lot of reason to question anything he says - including his reasons for taking us to war with Iraq.) For the record, if any Democrat had violated international law with pre-emptive strikes the way Bush did or had tossed out the UN process in staunch arrogance the way Bush did, they would have received the same scorn from me. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 17 2003, 10:09 PM Post #8 |
|
Lieutenant
|
HEY !! What going on here today ? Everyone now seems to have a "big bad Bush" attitiude - the last time I looked, this was a "yes Mr President", pro invasion, anti anti-invasion type of place. Where was the scorn a few months ago ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 17 2003, 10:16 PM Post #9 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Well, I'd like to think that I would be able to engage in the thought exercise either way. I might be inclined to think that the person making the post (assuming they were on the opposite side of the aisle from me) had an ulterior motive in making the post but, hopefully, it would not change my willingness to speculate. Also, take into account who is originating the post, Gabe is not one to generally make inflammatory posts for the sake of getting a rise out of the those who hold a differing POV. And as far as your rotating avatar go, as long as they don't cross the MrB line I expect we'll find them entertaining. Of course, if you get carried away... Well Wichita might have to take administrative action
(Wichita: I'm joking, kidding, craking wise...
)
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Nov 17 2003, 10:19 PM Post #10 |
|
Unregistered
|
The point in your (Gabe's) post makes perfect sense to me. I'll be the first to confess that my perception of a politician is often influenced or tainted by the "politics" of that politician (I think that the same is true of most of us). I'd like to think that my political persuasion doesn't cause me to take complete leave of my values or my senses, though. If something runs against my values, I hope that I will have the courage and character to speak out regardless of the "political affiliation" of the recipient of my criticism. I think most supporters of President Bush basically believe that what we're doing (re: Iraq) is proper and necessary. I also believe that most critics of President Bush are basically sincere when they express concerns about some of his policies. It's just that different people see the same issue differently. The pre-emptive strike against Iraq by the United States (and coalition) was a bold, unprecedented (by the USA) exercise in foreign diplomacy. I would have been shocked and concerned about this aggressive approach whether it was prosecuted by a Republican or a Democratic administration, but I do believe that Iraq was/is a problem we had to deal with (one way or another, at a certain time or another). I view some of the President's cabinet (primarily Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld) to be hawkish. They scare me (but they don't scare me nearly as much as the terrorists do). As a result, I've tried very hard to extend some leniency toward the President's Iraq policy - but I still wonder if maybe we haven't taken the best course of action. But we're there - in force - and I wish for a speedy and successful reconstruction of and EXIT FROM Iraq (and Afghanistan). I happen to believe that fanatical terrorists pose a real threat to my nation and that they have the desire and the means to inflict significant damage. For the first time in my life, I'm afraid for my nation's security (post 9/11) - a terrible feeling of vulnerability. I strongly believe something that Vice President Cheney said: that we cannot negotiate with terrorists, we cannot reason with terrorists, that the only solution is for us to destroy the terrorists (or to be destroyed by them). As for the UN - the US/Britain did eventually get the resolutions that we believe justified (sanctioned) the attack. I think we'd have seen about the same negative reactions from France and Russia if the "war" had been promoted in the same fashion by a Democratic administration. I think France and Russia's primary motive in opposing the "destruction" of Iraq was their financial interest. In my opinion, a distant second motive was/is their reluctance to see the USA "control" or lead the whole exercise in this region of the world - Iraq/Middle East. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 17 2003, 10:20 PM Post #11 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Let's not hear from that Bushlies.com site again. So much hokum, so few facts. David Corn likes to twist things to suit his agenda. Case in point, his "top ten" lies. What twaddle.
What about Bill Clinton firing cruise missiles at the Sudan, Afghanistan, or Iraq after the truce? Are those not violations of your vaunted "international law"? After all, what happened in 1998 that we needed to bomb a Sudanese aspirin factory? I don't remember any terrorist incidents at that time. Remember in 1993, when we "cruise-missiled" the Iraqi intelligence HQ at 2AM? Where's the outrage/scorn? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Nov 17 2003, 10:23 PM Post #12 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Re: 1998 Weren't those missile attacks replies for the bombing of American targets in Nigeria (or was it Kenya, I forget just now)? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 17 2003, 10:37 PM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
That was the claim, but it was also three days his non-apology regarding Monica Lewinsky. Three days earlier (the same day he made the speech, read it at this URL http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-sp1.html ) he also testified before a grand jury and the Office of Independent Counsel. Bill Clinton claimed the factory made "nerve gas" and was linked to Osama bin Laden. This is from the NY Times: ''Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden [terrorist] network. The [Shifa] factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons.'' It turns out the factory made aspirin and other pharmaceuticals and that examination showed no dual use chemicals (chemicals that could also make nerve weapons). The day after the cruise missile attacks was when the House of Representatives started looking into the case. The Starr Report came out a few weeks later. This is the first time we heard "Wag the Dog" to describe actions by a US president. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Nov 17 2003, 10:41 PM Post #14 |
|
Admiral
|
Apparently you don't remember me from Ten Forward... I have never supported Bush or the war in Iraq. I have always maintained that there was cause to deal with Saddam, but not in the way or at the time that Bush chose to do so. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| nztrekkie | Nov 17 2003, 10:51 PM Post #15 |
|
Lieutenant
|
I stand corrected then - I'll remember you from now on ! it is difficult to be one small voice against the roaring hoards sometimes
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2


)

2:14 PM Jul 11