Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are not good comparisons. Bush in this case made the preemptive strike on Iraq. While I give him a pass on ignoring the early intelligence about hijackers learning how to fly planes to crash them into buildings, I do not give him a pass on not planning for the aftermath of Saddam when he invaded Iraq. As you pointed out, history has indeed given us plenty of examples showing what radical Islamic jihadists are capable of. Bush thinking this would not be an issue in Iraq is simply unforgivable.
And yea, Iran will be a piece of cake. Look how easy Iraq has been.
You make some good points. I don't recall your arguments being made by any credible opponents of the President's decision at the time, though. Do you? (Not anti-war arguments. Strategic arguments.)
Iran is vulnerable in ways that Iraq is not. Saddam Hussein's pathetic army was able to fight them to a standstill. In addition, we would not need to invade and occupy Iran. Our forces would not be required to occupy urban areas. We could take out their sources of petroleum and other low-level industrial facilities with relaitve ease. Bob Dylan once said "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose." Iran has plenty to lose.
Keep in mind also that Iran is not an Arab country, but an alien ex-empire and a hotbed of Shia fundamentalism. The level of support for the theocrats in Tehran in the Arabic-speaking world is roughly equivalent to the level of support for the Bush administration in Alameda County, California.
You make some good points. I don't recall your arguments being made by any credible opponents of the President's decision at the time, though. Do you? (Not anti-war arguments. Strategic arguments.)
Iran is vulnerable in ways that Iraq is not. Saddam Hussein's pathetic army was able to fight them to a standstill. In addition, we would not need to invade and occupy Iran. Our forces would not be required to occupy urban areas. We could take out their sources of petroleum and other low-level industrial facilities with relaitve ease. Bob Dylan once said "When you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose." Iran has plenty to lose.
Keep in mind also that Iran is not an Arab country, but an alien ex-empire and a hotbed of Shia fundamentalism. The level of support for the theocrats in Tehran in the Arabic-speaking world is roughly equivalent to the level of support for the Bush administration in Alameda County, California.
No I did not see any strategic arguments being made by anybody... including the press in the United States. I did read plenty of it in the international media though, and I was screaming it from my watercooler to any of my colleagues at work that would give me an ear. This is why I find it humorous that people accuse the mainstream press of being liberal, when all of the news outlets were cheerleading whores for the administration leading up to and during the early stages of the war.
Regarding Iran, I guess my thoughts are sure we could take this nut out, just like we did Saddam. But again...then what? You now have two unstable countries instead of one. History shows us nothing is ever simple or easy in the Middle East. Those guys don't think rationally to our Western minds, so how can we possibly predict what is going to happen. Every time we do something over there it comes back to bite us in the ass.
As we all know, the president's approval rating has been steadily dropping across the country. I was wondering, in which places (be it state, city, or region) does the president still have a higher approval than the national average. And why?
Most folks up here in the tri-state area loathe the Bush administration. When I visit Florida, I see many "W" stickers on cars - why people still support this poor excuse for a human being is way beyond me.
States that, for the most part, are against the Bush Administration-
Massachusetts
New York
Connecticut
California
Rhode Island
Vermont
Pennsylvania
Oregon
Hawaii
Washington
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Maryland
Even those in the GOP in these states aren't supportive of our president.
Most folks up here in the tri-state area loathe the Bush administration. When I visit Florida, I see many "W" stickers on cars - why people still support this poor excuse for a human being is way beyond me.
States that, for the most part, are against the Bush Administration-
Massachusetts
New York
Connecticut
California
Rhode Island
Vermont
Pennsylvania
Oregon
Hawaii
Washington
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Maryland
Even those in the GOP in these states aren't supportive of our president.
what parts of Florida are you going to because he isn't popular here in Miami & Orlando.
The last I read about his approval rating in Tennessee, it was 41%.
Although it pains me to do so where the Shrub is concerned, but I can concede that mistakes and oversights happen with anyone. It's when you ignore facts while continuing to plow forward with a grandiose sense that you are "The Decider" that is unforgivable.
No I did not see any strategic arguments being made by anybody... including the press in the United States. I did read plenty of it in the international media though, and I was screaming it from my watercooler to any of my colleagues at work that would give me an ear. This is why I find it humorous that people accuse the mainstream press of being liberal, when all of the news outlets were cheerleading whores for the administration leading up to and during the early stages of the war.
Regarding Iran, I guess my thoughts are sure we could take this nut out, just like we did Saddam. But again...then what? You now have two unstable countries instead of one. History shows us nothing is ever simple or easy in the Middle East. Those guys don't think rationally to our Western minds, so how can we possibly predict what is going to happen. Every time we do something over there it comes back to bite us in the ass.
Obviously, you make some good points. And I compliment you on your earlier prescience at the water cooler. I find it interesting, though, that you criticized the President earlier for not being able to anticipate the Iraq quagmire, then ended this comment with "...how can we possibly know what will happen".
I hold firm to my belief that bringing down Iran's current ruling group of aging religious fanatics would be in everyone's best interest -- not least, the people of Iran, who are urbane and educated to a degree not present in Iraq.
I find it interesting, though, that you criticized the President earlier for not being able to anticipate the Iraq quagmire, then ended this comment with "...how can we possibly know what will happen".
Just to address this point. The president obviously has shown he is a "stay the course" kind of guy, so I doubt any amount of reasoning or logical arguments back then by anybody would have changed his mind. However...by taking out the government and military he quite obviously tipped the scales towards the quagmire we see today.
I don't think we can just say "well, how could we have known?" When we are aware the country is made up of a bunch of different tribes and religions that hate one another's guts. How could we have known the shiites would enjoy the taste of power and not want to share fair and square with the sunnis that had been treating them like crap? How could we have known the kurds would want to break off and live independently in the north? I don't think it takes a whole lot of prescience to see it coming. One of the things you learn in the military is the need for contingency planning. Where was the contingency planning for the Iraq invasion? Bush deserves everything he gets.
You want to bet that the Iranian people will now all be overjoyed and grateful to us if we take out their leadership? You don't think they might feel a little bit of national pride if their country gets attacked? You don't think all those radical Islamists won't use that to fuel the fire against the invading Christian infidels?
Even now recent Iraqi surveys show the only thing Iraqis seem to agree on is that they resent the US invasion and want us out of their country.
Obviously, you make some good points. And I compliment you on your earlier prescience at the water cooler. I find it interesting, though, that you criticized the President earlier for not being able to anticipate the Iraq quagmire, then ended this comment with "...how can we possibly know what will happen".
I hold firm to my belief that bringing down Iran's current ruling group of aging religious fanatics would be in everyone's best interest -- not least, the people of Iran, who are urbane and educated to a degree not present in Iraq.
I'm curious about the 2nd paragraph. How did you come to this conclusion? And if we are going to use that at an arguement, the blame is out our feet. I would imagine it would be hard to be urbane and to continue a semblance of the normal education process when your country is being blown to bits and the only legal system in place is that of the US military. And if blown to bits isn't enough, how about we add in the starvation and depleted uranium problem or the just plain deplorable living conditions.
Just to address this point. The president obviously has shown he is a "stay the course" kind of guy, so I doubt any amount of reasoning or logical arguments back then by anybody would have changed his mind. However...by taking out the government and military he quite obviously tipped the scales towards the quagmire we see today.
I don't think we can just say "well, how could we have known?" When we are aware the country is made up of a bunch of different tribes and religions that hate one another's guts. How could we have known the shiites would enjoy the taste of power and not want to share fair and square with the sunnis that had been treating them like crap? How could we have known the kurds would want to break off and live independently in the north? I don't think it takes a whole lot of prescience to see it coming. One of the things you learn in the military is the need for contingency planning. Where was the contingency planning for the Iraq invasion? Bush deserves everything he gets.
You want to bet that the Iranian people will now all be overjoyed and grateful to us if we take out their leadership? You don't think they might feel a little bit of national pride if their country gets attacked? You don't think all those radical Islamists won't use that to fuel the fire against the invading Christian infidels?
Even now recent Iraqi surveys show the only thing Iraqis seem to agree on is that they resent the US invasion and want us out of their country.
1/2. Yes, Bush is bull-headed. I stated that Bush was obviously not well-prepared for the Iraq adventure. But neither was anyone else whose opinion meant anything (I'm not dissing you; just saying you're not a national voice).
3. We won't have to invade Iran as we did Iraq. I'm betting that the internal opposition will have had enough of the mullahs and their idiotic fundamentalism to want them out. But we need to do it intelligently...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
