What will Pres. G. Bush do now? (page 4)

jaguarbass

Sorry I brought it up. Bush invaded Iraq to move the war on terror to another theater, lest it be fought on western soil.

Done with this thread.

If you want to know whats going on in the world stop watching fox news.

jayhawk1

sammieswife said,

a couple of hundred American lives and about 500,000 Iraqi dead and wounded.

Found this here in wikipedia

Independent analysts generally agree the Iraqi death toll was well below initial post-war estimates. In the immediate aftermath of the war, these estimates ranged as high as 100,000 Iraqi troops killed and 300,000 wounded. According to "Gulf War Air Power Survey" by Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, (a report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force; 1993-ISBN 0-16-041950-6), there were an estimated 10-12,000 Iraqi combat deaths in the air campaign and as many as 10,000 casualties in the ground war. This analysis is based on enemy prisoner of war reports. The Iraqi government claimed that 2,300 civilians died during the air campaign, most of them during an F-117 Stealth Fighter strike on what was believed to be an Iraqi military communications center in Baghdad (it turned out to be an air raid shelter also).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Storm

Your heart is in a good place, and I am on your side. I just wanted to make sure there was a reasonable number on the Desert Storm-Iraq War death toll.

In the above article, the last few paragraphs mentions an Iraq minister who thinks that 655,000 is much too high. It would not surprise me if the end result is above that number, however.

stillajwexelder

no evidence has ever been found indicating that Iraq was involved in terrorism.

Gassing Kurds obviously doesnt count as terrorism in your book

I think he wants to present an image of a tough talking America. I think he knows that any war with N Korea would be a huge amount of American deaths. It would go from bad to worse in hours. We have 20,000 troops on the border, and they have an Army of millions on the other side. Our troops would be a speed bump of death, on their way to Soul. There is not enough smart bombs to stop that.

sammielee24

Thanks jayhawk. The last document that I read on that was written abt 2001 and they were still quoting the higher figures - which doesn't change the fact that Bush lied to everyone in order to start the war then and secure his share of the oil. I think what rankles more than anything is the arrogance any government has in lying to it's people and fully believing, regardless of the cost physically and financially to the people, that they have the right to do so without accountability. Again thanks...sammieswife.

144001

Gassing Kurds obviously doesnt count as terrorism in your book

Apparently you deem "terrorism" to include acts alleged to have been commited by a sovereign nation within its borders? I guess the conservatives will keep tweeking the definition, but the reality is, the USA invaded a sovereign nation without any real justification, other than that of lining the pockets of Bush's buddies at Haliburton with oil money paid for in blood.

AK - Jeff

My point, not that my opinion matters, is that this [NK and Iran] matter is serious, and attacks on the character and tactics of the president are of no value. Shouldn't we instead support him [even if we disagree with his politics].

I, though a conservative, agree largely that the invasion of Iraq was folly in retrospect. WMD's were not found. We could go back and retrospectively attack Clinton for not killing Bin Laden when he understood [by his own admission] how dangerous he was.

My point is that retrospective analysis of the events that got us where we are is of no value, unless you can change the past. The president is in power for another two years, and I am positive that liberals will attack whatever choices he makes in office. I just think it to be counter-productive in the extreme, in such a crucial period of time, to bash the president. If a liberal were in office, it would be the same.

We stand at perhaps a very serious crossroads in history, where rogue nations are on the verge of obtaining nuclear arsenals that could take the world into WW III, and internal liberal/conservative fighting is worthless.

Sorry that I pissed so many off with a cry for a rise above. I am not political really, but it just makes sense.

Jeff

oldflame

Some may wish to call him a clown. But what is the president to do when faced with these bad guys? Jump in a hole and pretend nothin' is wrong? I just don't get that. This is not 1800 anymore. Isolationism won't work.

This is about the stupidest remark I have ever heard. Bush has made the situation worse by his actions and if had done his job fairly we would not be in the predicament we are in right now with Iran and North Korea.

XBEHERE

.....bombs away!

AuldSoul

I used to think I leaned toward Republican party lines because I thought they were conservative.

(1) They were opposed to unnecessary foreign entanglements. Now they seem to consider almost all entanglements necessary, effectively eliminating this as a platform plank.

(2) They were opposed to nation-building, in fact, Governor George W. Bush ran on that as one of his keynotes. Now they have embarked on the broadest sweeping nation-building effort the U.S. has ever undertaken.

(3) They were opposed to government spending and in favor of fiscal responsibility. I think we all know where this stands.

(4) They were opposed to use of U.S. military in police actions or acts of aggression without provocation. This administration set out to convert the form of government of a sovereign nation to Democracy through application of U.S. military force, a thing unheard of previously, without the overthrown government first committing a single act of aggression outside its own borders. The attempt has resulted in the most expensive application of U.S. miltary force ever in a police action, and might become the most protracted application as well.

(5) They were in favor of shoring up defenses at home to preserve individual freedoms with some measure of protection from foreign attack. Among the areas of exposure to threats identified post 9-11, few have seen more than very modest changes in policy or procedure and our southern border remains a sieve through which foreign nationals of nearly any ethnicity may cross into our country virtually undetected.

What others can you think of? To where did the Republican party disappear under the leadership of G.W. Bush, and what is this party that took its place?

Respectfully,
AuldSoul

What will Pres. G. Bush do now?