Yawn, Bush's Suprise Visit to Iraq Today

People vote for the candidate though mostly, not the party. That's how Republicans get elected, I thought.

Well, due to term limits, I won't have the pleasure of voting again for Bush. But, I can vote for the Republican candidate. He will win.

spendius wrote:

It was great. That's exactly what a Commander-in-Chief should look like.

And I have been in the military and I have been in Iraq but before all this got going and I can tell you for absolute sure that they are a beautiful people and that bastard had to be stopped no matter how long it takes and how much trouble it involves.

There is no question in my mind that Mr Bush is a heroic President.

What's sad is how easy simple, stupid propaganda works on you.

Tell me; what exactly has he done, actually done, which you would categorize as 'heroic?'

Cycloptichorn

Foofie, I don't seem to follow your method of discourse...this is, of course, verbal ping-pong to a large degree, and it appears that once the volley became more difficult to return, you bail. Am I safe to assume that "defending your comments about the President" are too personal for you to continue doing--like the question asked elsewhere if you served in the military?
Perhaps you need to reiterate the purpose of the sidewalk you have laid around yourself so other members of A2K can tread lightly around you--or simply place you over in the scrap pile with Zippo and Solve.
It's best to lay down the ground rules in advance so others know how you play.

This gave me a good chuckle though....

Foofie wrote:

People vote for the candidate though mostly, not the party. That's how Republicans get elected, I thought.

Foofie wrote:

Well, due to term limits, I won't have the pleasure of voting again for Bush. But, I can vote for the Republican candidate. He will win.

Clearly, the underlined word was just rubbish.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

spendius wrote:

It was great. That's exactly what a Commander-in-Chief should look like.

And I have been in the military and I have been in Iraq but before all this got going and I can tell you for absolute sure that they are a beautiful people and that bastard had to be stopped no matter how long it takes and how much trouble it involves.

There is no question in my mind that Mr Bush is a heroic President.

What's sad is how easy simple, stupid propaganda works on you.

Tell me; what exactly has he done, actually done, which you would categorize as 'heroic?'

Cycloptichorn

He got rid of a dictator in Iraq.

He understands the complexities of maintaining the U.S. economy in a global market, where the U.S., way prior to his Presidency, priced its labor force out of many a job market.

By the way, when the troops come home, will there be jobs for them? Perhaps, if they want to move to India or China (just joking, but you get the point).

Like the old fable King Midas' Touch, be wary what you wish for; you might get it.

Bush heroic! What a laugh. Remember, he is the guy who deserted the military.

There was nothing heroic in lying us into a war with a poor country with a military budget of $1.6 B. (He went into Iraq to grab the oil and gain political capital.)

I agree with woiyo, but I'm wondering why this dictator was chosen over all the others...or why others are not even mentioned by this administration as individuals who are antithetical to his vision of global freedom and democracy.
Saddam was clearly not a threat to the US...to some this is an ex post facto conclusion, for others, it was known in advance that he was not a threat. Either way, what distinguishes Saddam from other dictators in the world?

candidone1 wrote:

I agree with woiyo, but I'm wondering why this dictator was chosen over all the others...or why others are not even mentioned by this administration as individuals who are antithetical to his vision of global freedom and democracy.
Saddam was clearly not a threat to the US...to some this is an ex post facto conclusion, for others, it was known in advance that he was not a threat. Either way, what distinguishes Saddam from other dictators in the world?

This dictatator was "chosen" (poor use of the word) since under his regime, he violated just about every item listed under the Terms of Surrender which ceased hostilities of Gulf War 1. remember, that was the war where HE invaded Kuwait, looking to overthrow it's gov't and the UN gave the US and allies total support to remove the regime from Kuwait. We did, Saddam promissed to adhear to the terms and he failed.

Also, this is the same regime that stated it also ignored the terms of surrender as well as all UN Resolutions relative to WMD buildup.

Saddam wan not "chosen", he brought this situation on his citizens all by himslef.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith

woiyo wrote:

candidone1 wrote:

I agree with woiyo, but I'm wondering why this dictator was chosen over all the others...or why others are not even mentioned by this administration as individuals who are antithetical to his vision of global freedom and democracy.
Saddam was clearly not a threat to the US...to some this is an ex post facto conclusion, for others, it was known in advance that he was not a threat. Either way, what distinguishes Saddam from other dictators in the world?

This dictatator was "chosen" (poor use of the word) since under his regime, he violated just about every item listed under the Terms of Surrender which ceased hostilities of Gulf War 1. remember, that was the war where HE invaded Kuwait, looking to overthrow it's gov't and the UN gave the US and allies total support to remove the regime from Kuwait. We did, Saddam promissed to adhear to the terms and he failed.

Also, this is the same regime that stated it also ignored the terms of surrender as well as all UN Resolutions relative to WMD buildup.

Saddam wan not "chosen", he brought this situation on his citizens all by himslef.

I understand what you are claiming, but when I say "chosen", it was not a bad choice of words.

recall:

President Bush wrote:

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith

Source

So, the quintessential questions remain: where were the WMD, where were the development centers, where is the administrations' paper trail of Saddam's support for terrorist groups, where are the chemical and biological weapons stashes, and what information was there, other than Tenet claiming that there was "fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa." If this case against Saddam was such a slam dunk...where is all this stuff?

We are now into year 7 of deception and bad faith....everything Bush and this administration claimed was a strong case against Saddam turned out to be patently false....what you offer is merely a weak case for such a response to his regime.

waiyo: GW has failed miserable post Saddam.

Actually, GW failed miserably from Day 1 of his illegal war; incompetence and mismanagement got us to where we are today.

cicerone imposter wrote:

waiyo: GW has failed miserable post Saddam.

Actually, GW failed miserably from Day 1 of his illegal war; incompetence and mismanagement got us to where we are today.

So you assert that we had no valid reason to enter into Iraq at all for any reason?

Given World Opinion that he had, was building, WMD and actual proof of violation of the terms of surrender, please explain why you think this was an illegal war, especially given the UN (has no relevance, but I'll use it anyway) support at that time.

Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention.

woiyo wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

waiyo: GW has failed miserable post Saddam.

Actually, GW failed miserably from Day 1 of his illegal war; incompetence and mismanagement got us to where we are today.

So you assert that we had no valid reason to enter into Iraq at all for any reason?

Given World Opinion that he had, was building, WMD and actual proof of violation of the terms of surrender, please explain why you think this was an illegal war, especially given the UN (has no relevance, but I'll use it anyway) support at that time.

We did not have UN support for an armed invasion of Iraq. Do you recall this differently?

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

candidone1 wrote:
Iran, N. Korea and the Taliban in Afghanistan were clearly more worthy of America's undivided attention.

Can you expand on that for us? I am curious how you decided that.