Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

My games, as you call it, is to back up ones assertions with examples and evidence, a game, it is all too clear, you don't play. I note in passing that you could not give one single example of what you claim are catastrophic policies. Your sole technique for defending your viewpoint is, "it's obvious that I'm right." Bye, bye.

Brilliant. Prove that Bush's policy in Iraq has failed? C'mon Brandon - are you really that stupid, or willfully blind?
You have to search to even find rightwingers who don't think the war has been a catastrophe. But not you, eh truebeliever?

Steve Watson, November 24, 2006

The U.N. also this week reported that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll of the war. More than 3,700 were killed, with hundreds "bearing signs of torture and execution-style killing", said the report.

If this isn't civil war then what is?

From MSNBC:

Bush says Iraq, on brink of civil war, must choose between 'chaos and unity'

because the existing one had collapsed.

Here's an aftermath that just makes you feel sooooo good inside.

These three women have more courage in their left pinky nails than all the neocons and that whole group that still supports them.

First of all, this is the first time in the present discussion that you have referred to Iraq as an example. You merely referred to his unspecified "policies." Now that you have given an example of which policies you are calling catastrophic, I will address it. First of all, his Iraq policy did succeed in one important regard. Before the invasion, it was entirely possible that Hussein had not stopped his weapons development programs, buy merely hidden them better. That could easily have been the truth, just a coin you have not tossed yet could easily come up heads. He had indeed once had the programs, and had previously hidden and lied about them. Because they might still have been extant, and because had he perfected these weapons millions could have died or been opressed by him, invasion was the right thing to do. Now we know with certainty something that we could not learn by negotiation, that these programs were discontinued. This was the main goal of the invasion, and it succeeded. So the decision to invade was vastly superior, based on what was known at the moment of invasion, to a decision not to invade, which might have resulted in a Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear and bioweapons in a few years, similar to what has now happened in North Korea.

The failure has been rather in the occupation and reconstruction. The question then rises as to whether the failure is because of bad decisions or merely because it's a difficult mission. Failure may imply fault in the person who has failed, or it may imply merely that the task was difficult. In this case, I rather suspect that there have been some incorrect decisions regarding troop strengths. Also, probably, the citizens of Iraq should have been disarmed, and put under a curfew from the beginning. Two bad things are happening in Iraq today. The first is that a civil war has broken out. The second is that our enemies, the insurgents, are trying to tear down the government and erect their own in its wake. I am not sure whether or not we should have anticipated the civil war. Maybe we should have, but a lot of countries have been conquered and occupied without this occurring. The problem with religious factions might have been largeley settled by giving everyone a fair cand equal hance to participate in elections, but it is clear that many were not satisified with the peaceful competition of elections. As for the insurgents, their existence proves that those of us who claim that we are in a worldwide battle with a terrible enemy who must be destroyed are correct. The fact that our enemy is fighting back hard is not a fault of the president's. It may be his fault that we have not defeated them decisively in Iraq. I am not sure. Perhaps the was is being executed incompetently, or perhaps the insurgents are just a clever and resourceful enemy. I do not know, but I do know that invasion was necessary to make the world safe from Iraqi WMD and/or development programs that certainly could have existed, and that after conquering the country, we were then compelled to try to stay to promote a new democratic government and help with reconstruction.

I would guess that your policy would have been to allow inspections to go on year after year. Had this been our policy, and had Iraq been continuing its WMD research secretly, which might easily have been the case, we would then probably have eventually faced a WMD armed Saddam Hussein, and the world might have paid a terrible price. What would World War 2 have been like had Hitler perfected nuclear and bioweapons along with Werner Von Braun's V2 rockets?

You are truly hopelessly sold out, Brandon. You are not worth the effort of a sensible reply, and any such is wasted on you. But so I'm clear....

Hussein was contained, and the inspectors hadn't found anything that indicated he had or could have used any WMDs for over a decade. The invasion was planned ahead of time, and the Downing Street Memo proves that. Saying the "containment" part was the failed part is like saying "Tyson won the fight, except for the part where the other guy kicked his ass". The whole war has been a failed attempt by Bush to spread his idea of democratic dominion by launching an attack predicated on a knowingly trumped-up premise.

It started as a bad idea, and has devolved into a catastrophic farce, with American soldiers trying to manage a civil war between factions who consider Americans as fair game.

Thank God the time for the Brandons of the world is limited, and that most people seem to be coming to their senses about the Iraq debacle.

And as those who can't defend their own opinions try to save face by attempting to insult other members, let's return to the issues at hand. It's hard to find good economic news in the MSM in America as the left-leaning press doesn't want to give the Right any leverage it doesn't have to give.

But in the Scotsman, there is THIS

You consistently display complete ignorance of the basic ideas of fair and valid argument. Your position appears to be that anyone who disagrees with your position is not worth replying to. You then take what could have been a dignified argument and make it personal. Were this a formal debate, such a position would merely constitute a forfeit. I suspect the truth is that you cannot support your positions. Let's look at your defense of your ideas. Thus far you have used, in order, the following techniques to support your view:

1. I'm right because it's obvious
2. I'm right because lots of people agree with me
3. I'm right because you personally aren't worthy

This sort of defense is characteristic of people in the wrong, not people in the right.

You did, however, finally choose to lower yourself to provide a few lines of actual on-topic argument. You say:


The issue was that Hussein had had both biological and nuclear development programs, and had hidden them, lied about them, denied inspectors access, etc. Now, after many years of obstruction, he was at long last apparently allowing inspectors access, but could provide no evidence to support his claim that weapons or programs had been dismantled. The only possible conclusion at the time was that either they had been dismantled, but he had mysteriously chosen to preserve no proof, or else they had merely been hidden better. It was extremely difficult if not impossible to determine which. Had Iraq been continuing its covert development of these weapons and eventually produced some, it certainly could not have been contained. How do you contain a country that has the option of smuggling the components of its weapons into the target country and reassembling them there? How do you contain a country that says, "We have nuclear and biological weapons, and are quite prepared to use them if you interfere with our plans?"

Furthermore, since other countries, some with awful, agressive dictators at the helm will certainly seek this technology in the future and refuse to cooperate meaningfully with demands that it stop, such invasions will be necessary periodically in the future. The alternative is to allow doomsday weapons to fall into the hands of evil, imperialistic, agressive dictators. Find me a 3rd alternative for the case in which years of trying to peacefully persuade someone to stop these programs hasn't resulted in verifiable evidence that they have stopped.

The Scots care for America; that's why they are concerned about the antics of GWB.

A war is always good for the economy, and Bushco are apparently angling now for an attack on a new country at this very time.

Bush: "I Made A Name By Being Compassionate" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melinda-henneberger/bush-i-made-a-name-by-b_b_41044.html

The most ignorant man ever elected president (at least one of the top 5)

At least one of the top three (3).

To put things into proper perspective, perhaps we need to take a look at a man considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest U. S. president of all time by many people, Abraham Lincoln. Here are some things that were said about him, per the following site:

http://mistersnitch.blogspot.com/2005/08/bad-press-for-president.html

"Accused of changing the rationale for 'his' war, and hounded for mismanaging it. Derided as an uninspiring public speaker. Belittled as an idiot. Blamed for dividing the nation. Charged with incompetence in his administration. Accused of trampling on the Constitution. Engaged in censorship and manipulation of the press. Mockingly compared with lower primates. Pressured for a key Cabinet Advisor's resignation. Of course, we're referring to Lincoln."

The link goes on to explain numerous things for which Lincoln was criticized for and called every name in the book.

The Democrats criticizing Bush brings back memories of learning about the Copperheads during the Civil War. Nobody knows for sure how history will play out, and how history will judge George Bush after the events of the future provide more complete context to what is happening and what will happen. One thing seems to be abundantly clear to some of us, and that is that great men are at least consistent and committed to enduring principles and just causes. That cannot be said for many politicians nowadays, in particular Democrats, the party that has made flip flopping and riding the fence a fine tuned art.

http://www.answers.com/topic/copperheads

Yup. Lincoln. Perfect comparison to shrub.

Bush doctrine seems to be working with the norks now. Tentative deal reached. It's a shame we didn't just surrender to them earlier when the weak liberals wanted us too. Lil'Kim will have his way in 2 years when the Dems elect Shrillery in and she can work her magic like her hubby did.

"Shrillery" fits for sure, and could we add your term, Snood, and just call her "Shrillery the Shrub?"

I think in the conservative part of the Blogosphere, the politically correct swear word is "Hitlery". Isn't that good enough for you anymore?

A note on logic: Even if Lincoln was called a moron by some people, another politician who is called a moron by some people doesn't have to be a new Lincoln. In my opinion, Bush is no Lincoln. (And since this is the "Bush Supporters' Aftermath thread", I'll reserve judgment on whether Bush is a moron.)