| Author |
George W. Bush;s Resume (C.V) |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-29 11:04:57, maddav wrote:
@Patrik-in-Ca:
Just a slightly different question, you probably have heard of the big scandal in the UK, about intelligence, that was taken as truth, but under close scrutiny, turned out to be untrue, about the alleged range of missiles, that seemed to spark an awful lot of the momentum against Iraq. Also what about all the UN inspectors, and Hans Blix, coming to the conclusion, that there was no WMD, i find it very hard to believe that George Bush, and for that matter Tony Blair, could be taking that into account through their actions. Just a nice quote...
"They put exclamation marks where there had been question marks and I think that is hyping." ~ Hans Blix
_________________
David
|
|
Hans Blix has it absolutely correct in this quote. There were indeed Question Marks all over the place. But who's fault is it that the world had so many legitimate questions about Iraq and where they were with all the banned materials they had and the WMD programs they were running?
Yes - it is a black eye to the administration that no serious WMD materials or programs were discovered after removing Saddam from power. But I'd rather have the black eye than another 9/11. Looking back people were saying "let's give the inspections a chance" but nobody of any credibility was saying "Iraq has no WMD". And every chance Saddam had to let us be convinced that he was no threat - he played games and danced around and slammed the doors on us and claimed that the US was just spying on him. Well - NO KIDDING - the US was spying on him. I mean, he had agreed to allow unconditional and unfettered inspections of his military programs. What is that called??? Some call it inspections but one can just as easily call it spying. We were there to determine his military capabilities. Why did he wait over a decade before he started thinking of cooperating? 9/11 was the alarm clock that told everyone that time was out. The US isn't playing games anymore. And all the conventional intelligence - flawed as it was (now as we build up and improve our intelligence services) - was saying he had something and had no evidence that he had destroyed what we knew for a fact he had before.
And if in the aftermath - the world has an Iraq that has a renewed real chance to build a better future for itself, and the western industrialized nations have less dependence on terrorist sponsoring states for its oil, and we can now assert pressure on other states to make positive changes from a position of power instead of just asking "please" - I say GREAT.
The flaw here is the notion that "War is never the answer". It is an unfortunate reality that war is necessary at times. And after 9/11, the single worst attack on the United States in history, where thousands of innocent civilians going about their daily business, were intentionally targeted and slaughtered by foreign nationals, I for one am not in a joking, goofing off, playing around, delaying kind of mood. Neither was George Bush - as Saddam found out.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. | |
|
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
I must say very good response! I do agree with you in a way here, and it reminds me of when i was watching a news broadcast last year regarding weapon inspectors whilst on holiday in Florida. To quote my dad:
About Saddam He's just playing games, allowing them to view everthing, but then at the last minute restricting access to some places, almost as if he wants them to attack.
An interesting opinion.
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Exactly @Maddav ... I mean, knowing the current US administration was so hateful of me (if I were Saddam) I would have been a heck of a lot more cooperative with the UN and inspectors after 9/11. He took a big gamble, and he lost.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
What do you think Saddam will get? Death, life imprisonment, to be quite honest, i have no idea of what he is likely to be sentenced to.
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-29 16:44:36, maddav wrote:
What do you think Saddam will get? Death, life imprisonment, to be quite honest, i have no idea of what he is likely to be sentenced to.
|
|
Death. It would shock me if the Iraqi people don't reinstate the death penalty and convict him. But I've been suprised before.
Hey - What's your view Maddav?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
My view on the sentencing, death.
My view on the Iraq war, most likely right, not sure if for ALL the right reasons.
My (on-topic) view on Bush is very open to argument, but I don't like him personally, and i think that America could benefit from someone else, whether thhat should be John Kerry i honestly don't know. It seems very odd to be deciding what's best for America, whilst living in UK, but i guess that it affects the whole world.
btw, it's been a pleasure talking to you Patrick, and it's really the first time i've delved into any conversation not regarding mobile phones here on esato, very informative.
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-29 16:59:29, maddav wrote:
My view on the sentencing, death.
My view on the Iraq war, most likely right, not sure if for ALL the right reasons.
My (on-topic) view on Bush is very open to argument, but I don't like him personally, and i think that America could benefit from someone else, whether thhat should be John Kerry i honestly don't know. It seems very odd to be deciding what's best for America, whilst living in UK, but i guess that it affects the whole world.
btw, it's been a pleasure talking to you Patrick, and it's really the first time i've delved into any conversation not regarding mobile phones here on esato, very informative.
|
|
I'm flattered at your comment. Thank you.
I'm a Republican - who will likely vote for Bush. But I - in no way - feel he is flawless. I'm not as socially conservative as he appears to be. I also find it appaling that he has allowed for the continued expansion of spending when we are fighting a war and our annual deficit is so incredibly huge. I feel the tax cuts he advocated helped spur our economy - which is very important - but the spending continues to spiral out of control.
In truth, I wouldn't be so very sad to see Kerry elected. The more he tries to tell us what he would do if he were president, the more he sounds like another G.W. Bush with more hair. But I think the complete and utter hatred of one man is not a very good reason to elect another. And the outrageous "Hate Bush - Hate America" stuff I see flung all over is something I just had to respond to.
Now - tell us more about what you think.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
The main reasons why i don't like Bush, probably stem from his general laclustre attitude to being the president, this has been stopped somewhat due to the Iraq war, but he strikes me as being someone who would rather let his advisors do all the work, whilst relaxing, or adding that bit of PR to appease the masses who may be thinking "what's he done recently". I mean i'm not saying that he doesn't deserve a break, but especially in his first few months of office, he took an awful lot of holiday.
Another reason is a lack of trust to all his dealings, i know the term OIL WAR is thrown around many times, but i always get the impression (ooh hard evidence  ) that he's purposely concealing something, as opposed to other presidents/leaders, where you can usually assume that they're not telling you something, but you trust what they ARE telling you. Things like, the details about George Bush and his time with The National Guard make me question how much i can trust him.
Kind of related, are two of his 'advisors' Cheney (VP) and Rumsfeld, their pig headed-ness and refusal to counsel more with the UN, and some of Dick Cheney's scary remarks, such as, "We want total destruction", put me off the idea of Bush.
Regarding the Iraq war, i initally was downright opposed to the war, but this changed somewhat when my dad had to go out to Iraq (not for service, but he works with NAAFI, which basically provides troops with food etc.) for about 6 weeks, when he came back, he told me about all the poverty, and, for lack of a better word, horribleness. Then i wasn't exactly pro-war, but more of a neutral swaying towards pro-war. Now, in the aftermath of the 'war', and after the change-over of power, i think the situation has been handled badly, but before you respond, i personally cannot think of any better way, apart from maybe more UN help, but i can't comment greatly on that.
Sorry about the long time taken to type a relatively small amount, i'm only 16, and have carpel tunnel in my left hand, so i can't touch type...well.
_________________
David
[ This Message was edited by: maddav on 2004-07-29 16:34 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-29 17:33:50, maddav wrote:
The main reasons why i don't like Bush, probably stem from his general laclustre attitude to being the president, this has been stopped somewhat due to the Iraq war, but he strikes me as being someone who would rather let his advisors do all the work, whilst relaxing, or adding that bit of PR to appease the masses who may be thinking "what's he done recently". I mean i'm not saying that he doesn't deserve a break, but especially in his first few months of office, he took an awful lot of holiday.
Another reason is a lack of trust to all his dealings, i know the term OIL WAR is thrown around many times, but i always get the impression (ooh hard evidence ) that he's purposely concealing something, as opposed to other presidents/leaders, where you can usually assume that they're not telling you something, but you trust what they ARE telling you. Things like, the details about George Bush and his time with The National Guard make me question how much i can trust him.
Kind of related, are two of his 'advisors' Cheney (VP) and Rumsfeld, their pig headed-ness and refusal to counsel more with the UN, and some of Dick Cheney's scary remarks, such as, "We want total destruction", put me off the idea of Bush.
Regarding the Iraq war, i initally was downright opposed to the war, but this changed somewhat when my dad had to go out to Iraq (not for service, but he works with NAAFI, which basically provides troops with food etc.) for about 6 weeks, when he came back, he told me about all the poverty, and, for lack of a better word, horribleness. Then i wasn't exactly pro-war, but more of a neutral swaying towards pro-war. Now, in the aftermath of the 'war', and after the change-over of power, i think the situation has been handled badly, but before you respond, i personally cannot think of any better way, apart from maybe more UN help, but i can't comment greatly on that.
Sorry about the long time taken to type a relatively small amount, i'm only 16, and have carpel tunnel in my left hand, so i can't touch type...well.
_________________
David
[ This Message was edited by: maddav on 2004-07-29 16:34 ]
|
|
Very good analysis. For someone who is 16, you've got a reasonably good grip on the issues. First let me say - the speed of your response is of no consequence at all. The quality is the main point. Take as much time as you need to read, research, and respond.
Now to the issues:
President Bush on Vacation. See Ask Yahoo! about Bush's Vacation Days You'll see what looks like a lot of days on vacation - but to be fair - unlike propagandists like Michael Moore - you'll see this article characterize these as "Working Vacation". The fact is, no president really takes any days off while in office. His job requires daily briefings on many things and there are always a full days activities. Heck, even most meals are "meetings".
Trusting Bush.
Okay, this one is a personal call. People say he lies all the time. Well, I suppose he has lied. Was his big lies about the war? I don't think so. The 9/11 commission said it was a flaw of group think in the culture of US and world intelligence. Everyone just assumed Iraq still had the WMD they had before and just wasn't willing to let us inspect properly so we couldn't destroy them. Many who hate Bush say this is a convenient cop-out ... but the commission was composed of 1/2 Republicans and 1/2 Democrats and the report was released with a unanimous vote. It is what they concluded, no matter what anyone wants to believe.
Bush and his Military Service.
Okay ... the biggest weakness the Democrats had before Kerry was going up against an incumbent president engaged in armed conflict. Kerry is a decorated war veteran (who threw his military ribbons away) so that issue has been addressed to a good extent. But before Kerry, it was easy to criticize Bush on his record with the Air National Guard. He released his records - and it makes it clear he left service in the military with no problems. If he left the military early, it was with no complaint from the military. So where is the harm? Maybe you say - his well connected family got him out of service. Well, maybe that is so. And? I mean, if we're going to talk about privilege and wealth - look at Kerry and Edwards. Combined - they are by far richer than Bush and Cheney.
The War in Iraq.
This isn't easy at all. But I would like to point out that during World War 2 the United States had to be very patient as stability returned to countries like Japan and Germany. It wasn't just a year or two. The US still has major military units in both countries. I think the administration under-estimated the ease of victory and over-estimated the good opinion of the people of Iraq once Saddam was out. Maybe it is a cultural difference where the population values security and services more than democracy and freedom. But nothing worthwhile is simple, quick, or easy.
I want to hear more about your father in Iraq. I hope you will tell me more about what he did there and how his views and stories worked to change your point of view.
Thank you so much for your view. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
@patrick - Another little point of mine - I do wonder if the invasion of Iraq was simply the US looking for someone to invade and try to take away some of the pain of 9/11 - a sort of 'scapegoat'. Now, not for a moment am I taking anything away from the horrors of 9/11, or doubting that international terrorism must be stamped out somehow, but I'm not sure how much Saddam (evil though he was) had to do with 9/11.
Was the US - wounded and reeling - looking for the first person they could find to give a good kicking to to make themselves feel better and try to take the pain of 9/11 away, or at least help them to forget about it?
Al Quieda is frittered away in little terror 'cells' all over the planet - so the US would have to invade most countries in the world - including the UK and.... themselves!
I do take your point however on now not being dependent on oil on states that may sponsor or turn a blind eye to terrorism - although it does also depend on who the Iraqi people elect too! 
As for Saddam - I'd like to see him imprisoned for life. Why? Because death is far too easy a way out for him. I want to see him rot in jail for the rest of his life, deprived of all the luxuries he loved, with plenty of time to think about what a bastard he was. That's a much worse punishment than death in my opinion.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
In all fairness there isn't a great deal to tell about my father, and what he did in Iraq, he spent about 2 weeks of it, in Kuwait, travelling into Iraq on a bi-daily (is that even a phrase?) basis, when he went into Iraq, he went in with either US or UK convoy, and his work mainly involved making sure the troops were getting the supplies. For the remainder of the time, he stayed in Iraq, moving from base to base, sometimes in the US quarters, sometimes with the UK quarters, doing the same kind of work.
The stories came from when he was travelling in the convoy, and when there wasn't a sandstorm, they could see villages, on the outskirts of Iraq, that hadn't been assaulted by troops in the same way as other major cities, and the people were living in absolute squalor, with people looking malnourished and ill. True the malnourishment, and ill looking was most likely not to do with Saddam, but it give more of a picture of Iraq for me.
When he came back, he described it to me,, and it just made me think more about the people's lives with Saddam, and how beneficial it could be for them without Saddam.
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-29 18:10:55, Sammy_boy wrote:
@patrick - Another little point of mine - I do wonder if the invasion of Iraq was simply the US looking for someone to invade and try to take away some of the pain of 9/11 - a sort of 'scapegoat'. Now, not for a moment am I taking anything away from the horrors of 9/11, or doubting that international terrorism must be stamped out somehow, but I'm not sure how much Saddam (evil though he was) had to do with 9/11.
Was the US - wounded and reeling - looking for the first person they could find to give a good kicking to to make themselves feel better and try to take the pain of 9/11 away, or at least help them to forget about it?
Al Quieda is frittered away in little terror 'cells' all over the planet - so the US would have to invade most countries in the world - including the UK and.... themselves!
I do take your point however on now not being dependent on oil on states that may sponsor or turn a blind eye to terrorism - although it does also depend on who the Iraqi people elect too!
As for Saddam - I'd like to see him imprisoned for life. Why? Because death is far too easy a way out for him. I want to see him rot in jail for the rest of his life, deprived of all the luxuries he loved, with plenty of time to think about what a bastard he was. That's a much worse punishment than death in my opinion.
|
|
When I woke up the morning of 9/11 and watched the towers fall on my television, I thought to myself we are at war. It actually shocked me that the president didn't pressure congress to declare official and real war. (US Government/Civic lesson for those who don't know: The US Congress is the only group that can actually declare war. And no war has been declared.)
But who would we declare war on? Terrorists are not states or nations. They are, as you say, fractured and spread out amongst just about all nations. Tricky indeed. But just because something had never been done before doesn't mean something cannot be done. So what would I have done if I were president?
I would have called congress together for an emergency joint session, and in front of cameras and the media, asked them to sign a declaration of war against all international terrorist organizations and any nation that is proven to harbor, finance, supply, or give aid to them. I would have presented a list of nations that had been on the lists of terrorists sponsors who repeatedly refused to take any action about it. This is probably a great reason why I should never be the President of the United States.
In hindsight I can see how what I would have wanted to do would not have worked.
First, the list of countries might not be our real enemies - even though they don't like us. Maybe those that have active terrorist cells in them are unable to do anything effectively against them. Maybe they need financial and/or military support to expel them.
Second, one of those countries would have been Saudi Arabia -where most of the 9/11 hijackers came from. But to go to war with the country that supplies a huge chunk of the US oil supply would have thrust a knife into our already injured economy. We cannot sustain a war effort with a broken economy.
Bush may not seem that smart but if he were a real "cowboy" he could have done what I thought was best and go to war with a bunch of countries all at once. Instead he focused on one at a time while safeguarding our economy ... in this way:
First - He allowed time for intelligence to be improved (unfortunately not fast enough for Iraq) so that we could identify our real enemies and help those who would be our allies instead.
Second - By finally dealing with Saddam in Iraq he took out what everyone at the time believed to be a serious threat who would have worked with Al Quaida and other terrorists if he could. In addition he put a large chunk of oil reserves in a more secure situation for use by the western world and positioned us to be in a much more influential position with Saudi Arabia to deal with their terrorist issues without immediately cutting off it's oil. In other words, if we went to war with Saudi first, we may not have had the oil we needed to help our faltering economy. But now we can say to Saudi - Clean up your act in regards to terrorism or we may have to stop buying oil from you (which we can now do since we can look to Iraq for replacement oil). This allows us to have a great deal of leverage over Saudi Arabia without having to go bomb the most sacred sites of Islam.
It also lets the other countries in the region, like Iran, Pakistan, Jordan, Syria, etc... know that we are not fooling around and we mean business. This puts us in a much better position to force them make real changes (even if they don't like us) without having to go to war with them.
Yes - and as for your first point - it made me feel better to finally have kicked Saddam's ass after he had been thumbing his nose at the international community (and the US specifically) for over a decade. Someone who attempts to assassinate your head of state is never going to cooperate with you. Remember - it was Afghanistan that got the first boot from us - meanwhile we gave Saddam all that time between 11 Sep. 2001 and 03 March 2003 to start cooperating with the UN! Iraq was not the first to get the military treatment of the US.
Good point about what Saddam should get as a punishment. I was only stating what I think will happen to him. I will keep my opinion about what I think should happen to him myself for two reasons: 1) it's up to the Iraqi people what should be done with him, and 2) I don't want to have you running around calling me a sick sadistic freak! 
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-29 18:27:07, maddav wrote:
In all fairness there isn't a great deal to tell about my father, and what he did in Iraq, he spent about 2 weeks of it, in Kuwait, travelling into Iraq on a bi-daily (is that even a phrase?) basis, when he went into Iraq, he went in with either US or UK convoy, and his work mainly involved making sure the troops were getting the supplies. For the remainder of the time, he stayed in Iraq, moving from base to base, sometimes in the US quarters, sometimes with the UK quarters, doing the same kind of work.
The stories came from when he was travelling in the convoy, and when there wasn't a sandstorm, they could see villages, on the outskirts of Iraq, that hadn't been assaulted by troops in the same way as other major cities, and the people were living in absolute squalor, with people looking malnourished and ill. True the malnourishment, and ill looking was most likely not to do with Saddam, but it give more of a picture of Iraq for me.
When he came back, he described it to me,, and it just made me think more about the people's lives with Saddam, and how beneficial it could be for them without Saddam.
|
|
I hope life for the Iraqi people will be much better for them now that Saddam is gone and world attention is focused on their new democracy. However - no democracy ever started of with immediate peace and prosperity. It takes time. The philosophy of the people must change from that of being under a dictator who gave them relative security and basic civic services in exchange for their unquestioned loyalty and obedience to having to sort things out for themselves the problems of society while productively expressing their opinions to effect change. Talk about a difficult road ahead. Democracy isn't for the timid.
And thank you for expressing what you know about the situation in Iraq. Every perspective is important.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
and thank you, for a very informed counter-argument.
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Here is something that might cool tempers in here..specially for bush supporters.
The hottest Bush '04 ad so far
_________________
<<<+TIMELINE+>>>
[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-07-30 00:32 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-07-29 16:07
