| 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
| One mistake Bush has made | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 20 2004, 12:31 PM (298 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Aug 20 2004, 12:31 PM Post #1 |
|
Time to put something here
|
In my opinion one mistake that Bush has made is to overestimate the resolve, and spirit to work together of Americans and the west in general. After 9/11 the feeling in the air was that we got the kick in the pants we needed to open our eyes and see what was truly important, that we had the power to can come together and really change the world for the better. But only 3 short years latter it seems that it has returned to business as usual and the feeling of coming to gather has left, its once again every man for them selves, and when you look at it that is truly our greatest weakness – do bad they left that flaw out of the 9/11 report. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 20 2004, 12:33 PM Post #2 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Another mistake he has made is that he has not stomped on the "insurgents" (i.e., terrorists). |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Aug 20 2004, 12:35 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Dan, you seem to be as frustrated by this as I am.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Deleted User | Aug 20 2004, 12:38 PM Post #4 |
|
Deleted User
|
That is a good point, i never really thought of that. It is a little sad really. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| gvok | Aug 20 2004, 12:42 PM Post #5 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think Bush sqandered the good will of a large percentage of Americans and our allies by forcing an invasion of Iraq on flimsy grounds. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dandandat | Aug 20 2004, 12:49 PM Post #6 |
|
Time to put something here
|
To tell you the truth, I don’t see it that way at all. I think it was inevitable and Bush had little to do with it. We just cant put something’s behind us. If it wasn't Iraqi it would have been what ever was happening now. Its was a matter of time not situation. The fact that we get all work up about where Bush was during his years as a serviceman, or weather or not Kerry deserves his purple heart speaks volumes to that fact. Oh and it wasn’t flimsy grounds, the grounds where to make the world a better place, what was flimsy was the idea that Americans would care about something other then their own immediate well being. Hence the need to us something that would get their attention like WMD. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 20 2004, 12:53 PM Post #7 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Actually, your guy indicated the same thing. Just for grins, I'm going to use a source that Somerled would love: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/aug2004/kerr-a12.shtml To whit:
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 20 2004, 12:54 PM Post #8 |
|
Unregistered
|
Dan: Reasonable and equally informed minds can disagree on this issue. But consider this, what if instead of invading Iraq we kept the UN inspectors there and increased the pressure containing Saddam. At the same time we funneled more money and troops into Afghanistan focusing on the border regions where the jihadists have taken refuge. I definitely think more people would support President Bush under those circumstances. I know that I for one would still support him if that were the case. P.S. I appreciate the civil tone in which you responded to my post. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| ds9074 | Aug 20 2004, 12:57 PM Post #9 |
|
Admiral
|
As you would expect I broadly agree with Gvok, and that includes his comments about civil posts. I think Iraq was a distraction from where we should have been applying our full force. Its a bit like Germany invading Russia before they had finished off Britain and then having to fight on too many fronts at once. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Aug 20 2004, 12:57 PM Post #10 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Maybe in choosing war with Iraq Bush underestimated Americans leftover feelings of confliction over Viet Nam. The differences between the two actions are quite apparent to some, but obviously have not been communicated enough to all. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Aug 20 2004, 12:59 PM Post #11 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
UN inspections started again in November 2002 after a 4 year absence. Saddam had plenty of time to hide anything anywhere. In addition, Hans Blix and his team were being led around by Saddam's people to places they wanted Blix to see. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 20 2004, 01:01 PM Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
I think there's some truth to this. Although, the only comparison that really matters is that both Vietnam and Iraq were wars of choice rather than necessity. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| ds9074 | Aug 20 2004, 01:03 PM Post #13 |
|
Admiral
|
Hidden weapons of course are not useable weapons so even if all the inspectors did was make Saddam hide his weapons in hard to find places they were containing the threat. Additionally Saddam knew that if he used any weapons anywhere or was ever found to have any then we would be on him in a flash. So he probably didnt have the immediate capability nor the will to use such weapons. He was not an immediate danger - at least not in my view. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Minuet | Aug 20 2004, 01:09 PM Post #14 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
I don't agree that Iraq was unnessesary. Despite the lack of actual WMD finds there is absolute proof that Saddam was at least seeking this capability. Blix was doing a poor job of monitoring Iraq. Tell me, if you only go where Saddam authorizes you to go to you think you would find anything? Of course not. The man did not insist on full and free access to go where he would choose to go. The element of suprise was totally removed from the equation. Of course he found nothing on his inspections. If there were no actual WMD Iraq certainly tried to make it look like there were some. In other words, they asked for it. Don't play Russian Roulette with the biggest superpower in the world. (Someone should tell that to Iran now )
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Aug 20 2004, 01:14 PM Post #15 |
|
Unregistered
|
I understand what you mean, but it is not a certainty (looking at it from a cost benefit analysis) that the invasion of Iraq was a good thing let alone a necessity. I would also add that Vietnam was and Iraq potentially will become a quagmire. Again, I can accept that reasonable and fully informed minds can differ on this issue. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



)

3:24 AM Jul 11