Bush: History Will See Him As An Effective President!

[solderz 0]

Holy shit. Might as well argue about whether or not evolution is real or not. oh wait...

[CaneBrain 95]

Kim Jong Il was is bad.UN was is loosing their will to keep him contained.When that inevitably happens Kim Jong Il would have been will still be free to reconstruct his WMD machine continue trying to build nuclear weapons capable of reaching Hawaii or California or Alaska unfettered by UN control.This would have been be VERY BAD!Bush had the opportunity and the excuse to finally do what his father didn't have the balls to do invade North Korea. The choice was take him out now while it's easy he does not have a rocket that can reach American soil or wait 10 years when it would have been impossible when he might already have a rocket capable of reaching Hawaii or California or Alaska. Bush did the right thing wussed out on North Korea.Now the after war was a major cluster fvck. But the war itself was necessary. since nothing has changed, we should invade North Korea

I hope this exercise has further illustrated the utter madness of such a foreign policy and highlighted the fact that such a foreign policy is simply not affordable because I can play this substitution game all day.Heck, I think I just made a good case that if we were going to stupidly invade a country, North Korea made 5x more sense than Iraq.

[Balloon guy 158]

By this reasoning, we should have invaded North Korea and Iran already since they are much farther along in their nuclear programs and are led by just as evil people as Saddam (if not worse).That's why it's such terrible reasoning. Not only was it not necessary, it was counter-productive as it took our focus off the actual place where Al Qaeda is, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we used the above reasoning, we would be constantly invading every country with mediocre scientific capabilities and a bad man as a leader. That's an unsustainable foreign policy.

You must first make the case that the only war on terror that the US is involved with is the war on Al Qaeda. We are not. We, and by we I mean real Americans, we all want everyone to know that blowing stuff up to make political points will get you your butt kicked no matter where you are, who you are, or what you think.Let me see if the policy worked.

In a stunning declaration on December 19, 2003, the Libyan government announced its intention to fully disarm its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal. The Libyan government charted this new course after many years of diplomatic and economic isolation, which was the product of its rogue behavior in past decades. In addition, Libya’s announcement that it would unilaterally disarm its entire WMD arsenal came on the heels of nine months of secret negotiations with American and British officials. It appears clear that Libya’s decision was to some strong degree the result of diplomatic carrots and sticks, but certainly a variety of factors may have influenced Libya’s decision to renounce its WMD arsenal and pursue unilateral disarmament at this time.

I guess it did. Libya turned over on its own without the need to invade:

Nuclear1.7 tons of UF6 gas.9-machine L-1 gas centrifuge cascade, complete and under vacuum with all the needed pipes, electrical connections and process equipment installed.19-machine L-1 gas centrifuge cascade. Ten of the centrifuges were installed but not under vacuum.64-machine L-1 gas centrifuge cascade. Rotors placed in a position ready for installation, but not yet fully installed.Parts for additional 128 L-1 gas centrifuges.Two L-2 gas centrifuges.13 kilograms of 80% HEU-235 and 3 kilograms of uranium, in the form of fresh fuel inside fuel assembliesApproximately 4,000 casings for L-2 gas centrifuges. It is not clear how many if any of these casings contained the rotors needed to operate the machine.Additional parts for L-2 gas centrifuges.2,263 tons of uranium oxide that could potentially be converted to UF6 gas, then enriched if the Libyans eventually were to develop adequate conversion and enrichment capabilities.Gas centrifuges are the machines needed to enrich Uranium. UF6 is the uranium gas that is fed into gas centrifuges and spun at extremely high speeds to produce enriched uranium. L-1 is the designation for an old European gas centrifuge design also known as the P-1 or G-1. L-2 is a more advanced gas centrifuge design that uses rotors made of maraging steel as opposed to the L-1’s aluminum rotors. It has been alleged that A.Q. Khan, the illustrative so-called father of Pakistan nuclear bomb program, stole blue prints for the L-1 and L-2 centrifuge designs when he was an employee of the European nuclear consortium named Urenco in the 1970s. Some assert that Pakistan built its enrichment process by duplicating these designs, which came to be known as P-1 and P-2. Enriching the amount of U-235 needed for the production of one nuclear bomb requires running approximately six tons of UF6 gas in 750 gas centrifuges for one year. As is evident from the inventory of actual nuclear components and equipment that were in Libya’s possession, Tripoli was far away from achieving an adequate enrichment capability necessary to produce sufficient quantities of HEU and from achieving any real nuclear weapon production capability.Chemical3,563 unfilled chemical aerial bombs.23 tons stockpile of mustard gas.1,300 tons of chemical precursors that could be used to produce Sarin and other chemical agents.All of these materials related to Libya’s chemical arsenal were destroyed under United Nations (OPCW) supervision in March 2004 or thereafter.Missile5 Scud-C missiles with a range of 800km.Hundreds of Scud-B missiles with a range of 300km.

So the policy to make Saddam a clear message was met with a loud: "We hear you, please don't kick our butt also" from at least one terrorist state.And pretending that our focus was taken off of Afghanistan is also false. We actually have a large enough military to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and still maintain troop levels in South Korea, Germany and a few other hot spots in the world.

Also, please don't throw around terms like "inevitably" without any evidence. And since there were no WMDs there, saying that Iraq had a "WMD machine" is kinda like saying the Dolphins have a "special teams juggernaut"

It was inevitable that you would use the Dolphins as an example of a weak argument. I mean its Freudian if you ask me. They suck, you are having a hard time accepting they suck so you lash out and attribute what you think in the privacy of your brain to me, so you can relieve the pressure of your failure to be a loyal fan. You are both un-American and un-Dolphin fanatical.I hope you enjoy the soup of deception and lies you have cooked yourself. Slurp slurp comrade.Oh and you don't buy high grade centrifuges from the French during the scam of the oil for food program in order to not get into the 'we don't want nuke technology' community. What you do is you don't buy one illegally from the whores of Europe who willingly wold Saddam centrifuges, weapons and armaments. That is how you stay in the 'we don't want no WMDs in our arsenal' community.Currently many countries are employing this method to not own WMDs. It is working 100% of the time.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

I hope this exercise has further illustrated the utter madness of such a foreign policy and highlighted the fact that such a foreign policy is simply not affordable because I can play this substitution game all day.

Nope not at all. You can substitute all you want but the two cases are very different.Bush had troops in place, a mandate, an easy rout in, and Saddam had no allies that posed a threat. None of this exists in the North Korean situation. If they did it would be foolish not to invade.

[Balloon guy 158]

I hope this exercise has further illustrated the utter madness of such a foreign policy and highlighted the fact that such a foreign policy is simply not affordable because I can play this substitution game all day.Heck, I think I just made a good case that if we were going to stupidly invade a country, North Korea made 5x more sense than Iraq.

Except that North Korea has the ability to actually take the opportunity to head south and destroy a major US ally within a few days with their massive army.Our 40,000 troops on the border would not be able to stop them should they invade, and only a full blown war with massive causalities would ensue.Iraq on the other hand could be invaded with an expected causality assessment 1/4 of the numbers killed during the embargo by the Clinton Administration.We probably saved more lives than were lost by invading Iraq.Too bad we didn't do it before Clinton's plan killed over 500,000 children. Maybe those kids would be alive today.

[CaneBrain 95]

Nope not at all. You can substitute all you want but the two cases are very different.Bush had troops in place, a mandate, an easy rout in, and Saddam had no allies that posed a threat. None of this exists in the North Korean situation. If they did it would be foolish not to invade.

Yes, such a mandate that most of our allies laughed in his face or gave token assistance.You realize we have tens of thousands of troops in South Korea right? So you are saying if China gave us their blessing, you would want to invade North Korea?At least your tag of being a right-wing whacko is not false advertising.I love that you shrug off the lack of an exit strategy as "oh well the after war was a cluster ****, what can ya do" as well.

[CaneBrain 95]

It was inevitable that you would use the Dolphins as an example of a weak argument. I mean its Freudian if you ask me. They suck, you are having a hard time accepting they suck so you lash out and attribute what you think in the privacy of your brain to me, so you can relieve the pressure of your failure to be a loyal fan. You are both un-American and un-Dolphin fanatical.I hope you enjoy the soup of deception and lies you have cooked yourself. Slurp slurp comrade.

What's clear is the perfect illustration of how you think. If I recognize the Dolphins have special teams problems, that makes me unloyal. (As opposed to a person with eyes and a functioning brain.) It is this amazing capability, that lets me both love America and recognize its shortcomings as I both love the Dolphins and yet recognize that their special teams are garbage.Whereas you think being loyal is advocating that even obvious foreign policy mistakes are correct moves. That's called being a zealot not a patriot.

And pretending that our focus was taken off of Afghanistan is also false. We actually have a large enough military to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and still maintain troop levels in South Korea, Germany and a few other hot spots in the world.

That's probably why all those generals said our troops were stretched very thin and why they instituted things like stop loss. Because fighting two wars and maintaining troop levels elsewhere is a piece o cake.

[brvheart 1,757]

New CNN poll has Obama and Bush mathematically tied for the question, "Which man was a better president?".

[SAM_Hard8 50]

Yes, such a mandate that most of our allies laughed in his face or gave token assistance.You realize we have tens of thousands of troops in South Korea right? So you are saying if China gave us their blessing, you would want to invade North Korea?At least your tag of being a right-wing whacko is not false advertising.I love that you shrug off the lack of an exit strategy as "oh well the after war was a cluster ****, what can ya do" as well.

Once again you can't equate Iraq's small already decimated army with the Millions in the North Koren army. It's total apples/oranges. And you even choose to deride what I say when I agree with you. Nice work.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yes, such a mandate that most of our allies laughed in his face or gave token assistance.

Most of our allies?Who?The french the russians and the germans said no.That was about it.And all three of them were too busy making back room deals selling Saddam weapons and centrifuges while illegally exploiting the oil for food program. They were just trying to keep their criminal involvement at a minimum.The rest of the world was with us ( or against us)

[Balloon guy 158]

What's clear is the perfect illustration of how you think. If I recognize the Dolphins have special teams problems, that makes me unloyal. (As opposed to a person with eyes and a functioning brain.) It is this amazing capability, that lets me both love America and recognize its shortcomings as I both love the Dolphins and yet recognize that their special teams are garbage.Whereas you think being loyal is advocating that even obvious foreign policy mistakes are correct moves. That's called being a zealot not a patriot.

Obvious mistakes to who? The wacko left who voted for it and wanted a platform to run on?They lost the right to be considered when they declared the surge a failure and labeled General Petraeus a traitor.Plus they are mostly un-American.

That's probably why all those generals said our troops were stretched very thin and why they instituted things like stop loss. Because fighting two wars and maintaining troop levels elsewhere is a piece o cake.

5 years later they are stretched thin. Not the first day.I can work two jobs for a while if need be and it will work fine. After 5-6 years I might start whining a bit, does that mean I wasn't up to having two jobs? Or that I am an American who doesn't like to work and would rather be on food stamps since that is the only successful program currently working in the Obama White House.

[CaneBrain 95]

Once again you can't equate Iraq's small already decimated army with the Millions in the North Koren army. It's total apples/oranges. And you even choose to deride what I say when I agree with you. Nice work.

You were agreeing with my sarcastic position.Also, basing wars on how many troops we will lose is THE WORST IDEA EVER. It should be based on how necessary the war is to fight and what kind of danger we are trying to prevent by going to war. No one ever questioned that we could beat down the Iraq army with ease. The question was "Should we have been there in the first place?" or "What will the long term effect be of this war?" or "What will we prevent by going to war?" or "Will the cost of this war give us some sort of benefit?"Not just "can we win easily."That's why no one ever questions World War II despite the fact that we lost so many young American patriots. They died for something worthwhile, a just cause. Also, not one of those guys in the North Korean army has had a proper meal in years, just sayin.

[Balloon guy 158]

[LongLiveYorke 38]

In my mind, the best case scenario would have been to simply get a CIA operative to take out Saddam. One bullet. It saves us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we'd essentially be in the same place we are now in terms of Iraq's political situation.

[CaneBrain 95]

Obvious mistakes to who? The wacko left who voted for it and wanted a platform to run on?They lost the right to be considered when they declared the surge a failure and labeled General Petraeus a traitor.Plus they are mostly un-American.

nice dodge.

5 years later they are stretched thin. Not the first day.I can work two jobs for a while if need be and it will work fine. After 5-6 years I might start whining a bit, does that mean I wasn't up to having two jobs? Or that I am an American who doesn't like to work and would rather be on food stamps since that is the only successful program currently working in the Obama White House.

Yeah, except anyone with a brain knew we would be there at least five years. I know this because Dick Cheney said so when interviewed about Desert Storm.

[CaneBrain 95]

In my mind, the best case scenario would have been to simply get a CIA operative to take out Saddam. One bullet. It saves us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we'd essentially be in the same place we are now in terms of Iraq's political situation.

This I could have gotten behind if we really just thought Saddam was THAT BAD A MAN. Invading the whole country because the leader is BAD seems wildly inefficient.

[El Guapo 8]

In my mind, the best case scenario would have been to simply get a CIA operative to take out Saddam. One bullet. It saves us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we'd essentially be in the same place we are now in terms of Iraq's political situation.

They could have done this, but then his crazy son would have taken over. Who was 10X worse than his dad.

[CaneBrain 95]

They could have done this, but then his crazy son would have taken over. Who was 10X worse than his dad.

Was it Uday or Qusay who was the really scary one?Guess we needed three bullets to be safe. Or one really well placed rocket.

[Balloon guy 158]

In my mind, the best case scenario would have been to simply get a CIA operative to take out Saddam. One bullet. It saves us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we'd essentially be in the same place we are now in terms of Iraq's political situation.

You can thank Jimmy Carter for this not being allowed.And yes, he was a democrat.

[Balloon guy 158]

nice dodge.

Thanks I didn't have anything else.

Yeah, except anyone with a brain knew we would be there at least five years. I know this because Dick Cheney said so when interviewed about Desert Storm.

Hmmm.. if only there was something I could point to that made Desert Storm different from the Iraq War of 2002...There must have been something...

[CaneBrain 95]

Thanks I didn't have anything else.Hmmm.. if only there was something I could point to that made Desert Storm different from the Iraq War of 2002...There must have been something...

The Willenium?Again, we covered that Al Qaeda (the people solely responsible for 9/11) were not connected to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

[SAM_Hard8 50]

You were agreeing with my sarcastic position.

Where and how, or do you think everything is about you?

Also, basing wars on how many troops we will lose is THE WORST IDEA EVER. It should be based on how necessary the war is to fight and what kind of danger we are trying to prevent by going to war. No one ever questioned that we could beat down the Iraq army with ease. The question was "Should we have been there in the first place?" or "What will the long term effect be of this war?" or "What will we prevent by going to war?" or "Will the cost of this war give us some sort of benefit?"Not just "can we win easily."That's why no one ever questions World War II despite the fact that we lost so many young American patriots. They died for something worthwhile, a just cause. Also, not one of those guys in the North Korean army has had a proper meal in years, just sayin.

SO factoring in the potential cost VS results is a bad idea?Oh wait later you say it is. Now I'm confused

[vbnautilus 48]

In my mind, the best case scenario would have been to simply get a CIA operative to take out Saddam. One bullet. It saves us thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and we'd essentially be in the same place we are now in terms of Iraq's political situation.

I dunno, finding him hiding in that hole was kinda worth it.

[Balloon guy 158]

The Willenium?Again, we covered that Al Qaeda (the people solely responsible for 9/11) were not connected to Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

I thought we also covered that global terrorism had reached a point that being reactive was no longer a viable option and that we would no longer treat their actions as legal matters to be investigated, but instead military matters that gave us the green light to kill some people that need dying.but if you want to go back to the Pre-Bush years and live under Clinton's ignoring Al Qaeda and allowing their leadership to escape because the CIA might get caught so instead we'll just starve a half a million kids and pretend that we are doing something about the problem..you go right ahead.The rest of the country, the ones that love being Americans, we'll continue to support the notion that 9-11 upped the ante, and the game is now to the death!Not just until the left get tired of being real men.

[Balloon guy 158]

I dunno, finding him hiding in that hole was kinda worth it.