Bush's Successes

[Gza]

Instead of the simpleminded attacks on Bush by listing all of his failures (quite easy to do for any politician,) I thought it would be interesting to post what he has exactly succeeded at during his four year term. Links and resources will be needed for support as well. Post Away!

[JohnDubYa]

Saddam is in jail.

Do I need to post a link and cite references?

[wasteofo2]

He gave Saddam a nice dental checkup too :D
http://i.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/saddamcapture/1.jpg

[Adam]

He gained some oil, made a hell of a lot of money for companies he is invested in.

[Smurf]

Did successfully invade both iraq and afganistan.

[JohnDubYa]

He gained some oil, made a hell of a lot of money for companies he is invested in.

Sounds like a smart man. I like that in a President.

[Adam]

... And in so doing, successfully killed over 10,000 Iraqi civilians, something like 90,000 Iraqi military, lots of people in Afghanistan (no, I don't have numbers on me here), and quite a few US troops as well. He was very successful at that.

[wasteofo2]

Did successfully invade both iraq and afganistan.
He also successfully sent less than half the amount of troops needed into Iraq with next to no military support, and has sucessfully left our troops in Iraq for 2+ years for a bloody and chaotic occupation.

[phatmonky]

He also successfully sent less than half the amount of troops needed into Iraq with next to no military support, and has sucessfully left our troops in Iraq for 2+ years for a bloody and chaotic occupation.
Oh really??

Some perspective on the rate of combat casualties in Iraq. Any casualty is a tragedy, but the numbers of fatalities vs. iniuries are pretty amazingly low.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM

IRAQ: Interesting Casualty Rate News


September 5, 2004: American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:8. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.


Seems as if the troops are better supported than anytime before.

[russ_watters]

He gained some oil, made a hell of a lot of money for companies he is invested in. For that, I'll need more specifics and references. For starters, what exactly does "he gaines some oil" mean? Does he own it himself?

[JohnDubYa]

It sounds like we are going to rehash the same freakin' arguments that we have hashed a million times already. For example:

Adam states that 10,000+ civilians have been killed.

Someone will ask him to verify those numbers.

Adam will post links to irrelevant Web sites containing faulty logic.

And on, and on, and on.

[Adam]

For that, I'll need more specifics and references. For starters, what exactly does "he gaines some oil" mean? Does he own it himself?

Nope, the companies he is an investor with now have it.

[Adam]

It sounds like we are going to rehash the same freakin' arguments that we have hashed a million times already. For example:

Adam states that 10,000+ civilians have been killed.

Someone will ask him to verify those numbers.

Adam will post links to irrelevant Web sites containing faulty logic.

And on, and on, and on.

Hey, I base it on figures from a website which bases its figures on hospital reports, reports from the UN and AI, and so on. If you doubt the numbers, complain to those international organisations, and tell the medical professionals in Iraq they are wrong.

[gravenewworld]

Successfully turned the 2001 fiscal year 127.3 billion dollars surplus into a 157.8 billion dollar deficit in less than 1 year. Before Bush took office the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected that over 10 years the government would have surpluses totaling over 5.7 trillion dollars. Now in 2004 Bush has successfully turned that around into into a projection by the CBO of 10 straight years of deficits totaling over 2 trillion dollars more that will be added to the national debt. Keep in mind that the government today already spends almost 20% of its entire budget paying off the INTEREST ALONE on its debt. Deficits do matter, espcially with the upcoming massive wave of retiring baby boomers.

[phatmonky]

Successfully turned the 2001 fiscal year 127.3 billion dollars surplus into a 157.8 billion dollar deficit in less than 1 year. Before Bush took office the nonpartisan congressional budget office projected that over 10 years the government would have surpluses totaling over 5.7 trillion dollars. Now in 2004 Bush has successfully turned that around into into a projection by the CBO of 10 straight years of deficits totaling over 2 trillion dollars more that will be added to the national debt. Keep in mind that the government today already spends almost 20% of its entire budget paying off the INTEREST ALONE on its debt. Deficits do matter, espcially with the upcoming massive wave of retiring baby boomers.

Not counting the Social Security Revenue, and there was no surplus. The last time we counted the SS revenue before this was to hide the cost of the vietnam war.
So, why don't you repost with all the facts. Perhaps what the the budget was at when you don't use two different scales.

[JohnDubYa]

Hey, I base it on figures from a website which bases its figures on hospital reports, reports from the UN and AI, and so on. If you doubt the numbers, complain to those international organisations, and tell the medical professionals in Iraq they are wrong.

Which double-counted many casualties, and counted those that were killed by fellow Iraqis. As I said before, we already went through this.

gravenewworld, I think the original post asked for references.

[gravenewworld]

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0 (This fiscal year and future fiscal years)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 (historical budget data)


Perhaps you are confused about the terms on-budget and off-budget. The on-budget calculations of budget surpluses and deficits don't count social security. If you don't count the current surpluses of the off budget items, then the budget deficits are even worse, 536 billion dollars on-budget deficit for this fiscal year and a projected 10 years of on-budget deficits totaling to over 4.4 trillion dollars (instead of the 2 trillion dollars I said earlier). If you don't want to count SS then yes I will admit that there was a deficit of 33 billion for fy 01, but Bush was president for Jan-Oct. of that fiscal year. There was indeed an on-budget surplus of 86.6 billion dollars for fiscal year 00. Look at the history of the on-budget deficits, they were reduced dramatically while Clinton was in office, but when Bush came in to office they went to record levels. You republicans wouldn't recognize facts if they hit you over the head.

[wasteofo2]

Oh really??

Some perspective on the rate of combat casualties in Iraq. Any casualty is a tragedy, but the numbers of fatalities vs. iniuries are pretty amazingly low.


http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=IRAQ.HTM


Seems as if the troops are better supported than anytime before.

Go look at the number of Americans killed occupying Japan and Germany post WWII (I believe the number is zero), then look at the number of Americans killed occupying Iraq after the President proclaimed "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Bush admits it, we're an occupying force in Iraq now, waiting and waiting and waiting for sane Iraqi's to take their country back and provide their own defense while we're getting blown up all over the place. I've heard countless reports of people saying we needed somewhere in the range of 300,000 in Iraq to really secure it after we got rid of Saddam, and obviously we're not doing a bang-up job of making the nation secure now.

[Smurf]

To be fair, there were casualities occupying Germany and Japan, but then remember it was the cold war and the count was still far lower than that in iraq, and they havnt even been in iraq for as long yet.

[phatmonky]

Go look at the number of Americans killed occupying Japan and Germany post WWII (I believe the number is zero), then look at the number of Americans killed occupying Iraq after the President proclaimed "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." Bush admits it, we're an occupying force in Iraq now, waiting and waiting and waiting for sane Iraqi's to take their country back and provide their own defense while we're getting blown up all over the place. I've heard countless reports of people saying we needed somewhere in the range of 300,000 in Iraq to really secure it after we got rid of Saddam, and obviously we're not doing a bang-up job of making the nation secure now.

No, I'm going to tell you to show them to me. You make this assertion with no link or anything expect me to look it up? You make a statement, you back it! Show me numbers.
I would also say that Iraq is closer to S Korea, not Japan or Germany. And to remind you, Korea had 3 years before they were handed back over. In that time, there were protests, riots, and deaths.

On the note of Germany, let's see what people said then, since it is SO much worse now - sound familiar??:
LIFE magazine (January 7, 1946):

We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.

“Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…”

“To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”

The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting.

“Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major.

The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….”

The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”

A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.

You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.

Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.

The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.

The scans and texts to that times article was on Rush Limbaugh's site for a while (give me a break, you may hate him, but his texts were whole and accurate).

'Countless' - then you can show me a recent link that says more forces in the country right now would change things?

'waiting and waiting' - we are waiting for January for Iraqi elections, or did you miss where the UN agreed with us, and said that Iraq was not ready to have honest elections??? http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040115-112502-3479r.htm

[phatmonky]

To be fair, there were casualities occupying Germany and Japan, but then remember it was the cold war and the count was still far lower than that in iraq, and they havnt even been in iraq for as long yet.

You too could post a link to this mysterious count.
It'd also be interesting to note that Japan and Germany had marshall law, thus they are hardly an apples to apples comparison.

In fact, I can't think of another time we have been in a country after a war, cleaning up, and we didn't implement marshall law. So much *****ing about delaying their elections and calling us an 'occupying force' (same thing we were in Korea, Japan, and Germany)- I wonder what people would say if we had implemented marshall law??

[Smurf]

I would have said 'Finally they did something right'

but thats just me

[phatmonky]

I would have said 'Finally they did something right'

but thats just me
Well atleast we can agree there.
I think it would have been a step in the right direction. If the President's detractors weren't so hung up on making this into a war of imperialism, perhaps it could have been pushed as a good choice. To implement this valid military tactic would have simply given credence to the many nuts out there that are convinced Iraq is the 51st state (people that act as if elections aren't happening because we aren't allowing them to for one). However, despite this error, I hardly think there it is lends validity to any of the other points I responded to.

[phatmonky]

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0 (This fiscal year and future fiscal years)
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 (historical budget data)


Perhaps you are confused about the terms on-budget and off-budget. The on-budget calculations of budget surpluses and deficits don't count social security. If you don't count the current surpluses of the off budget items, then the budget deficits are even worse, 536 billion dollars on-budget deficit for this fiscal year and a projected 10 years of on-budget deficits totaling to over 4.4 trillion dollars (instead of the 2 trillion dollars I said earlier). If you don't want to count SS then yes I will admit that there was a deficit of 33 billion for fy 01, but Bush was president for Jan-Oct. of that fiscal year. There was indeed an on-budget surplus of 86.6 billion dollars for fiscal year 00. Look at the history of the on-budget deficits, they were reduced dramatically while Clinton was in office, but when Bush came in to office they went to record levels. You republicans wouldn't recognize facts if they hit you over the head.

You mistake my wanting you to simply make sure you are starting with a founded argument as disagreeing with your general message (as a fiscal conservative, I am not entirely pleased with our government spending). My point was everyone continues to label the 'surplus' larger than it was, that is all.

Back on topic of debating your actual point, do you really think that Clinton made the 90's tech boom what it was, and that Bush made the subsequent bubble burst what it was?

How do you account for:
The internet coming to market
Enron, Worldcom, etc.
90's P&L's being ranked 50 times their actual value
9/11

Don't take any of my questions as predetermined stances please. I ask a lot of things simply to ask them.

[FaverWillets]

Nope, the companies he is an investor with now have it.
All these "oil" based arguments tabled for the moment...it was Dubya who went before the UN the Powell and argued for a PRE emptive war against this tiny nation... the "evidence" was presented, then summarily disproven after our occupation... the whole war seems to be a glorified verson of the Hatfields versus the McCoys...Bushs' versus the Hussiens'... junior simply wanted to kick Saddam's ***... at any cost... now the prevailing argument that America is going to bring the Iraqis democracy is the most ludicrous thing imaginable... since when is a democracy formed from the TOP down? Here, our founding families brought it from the bottom UP...paying for it with a burning desire to defeat the British monarchy and its "system" of government. The poor Iraqis represent a culture totally foreign to our way of life here. I swear this political cartoon keeps running through my head...it's of Bush screaming at the Iraqis that he will by God bring them a democracy even it means killing ever man, woman and child. Let's face it folks. this President is not only stupid, but he is a liar of the lowest order. But hey, that's just me thinking out loud again.

[JohnDubYa]

since when is a democracy formed from the TOP down?

Ha ha ha! Yeah, democracy in Japan and Germany after WWII was founded by a grass roots movement. Noriega was ousted by public referendum.

How do you explain Panama? They had a vile dictator. We sent in troops and arrested his butt. Now Panama has a democracy.

Did you support the invasion of Panama? If the country had listened to you, what kind of government would Panama likely have today?

The poor Iraqis represent a culture totally foreign to our way of life here.

Yeah, but the Japanese in 1945 were all Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms.

Give me a break.

[FaverWillets]

Ha ha ha! Yeah, democracy in Japan and Germany after WWII was founded by a grass roots movement. Noriega was ousted by public referendum.

How do you explain Panama? They had a vile dictator. We sent in troops and arrested his butt. Now Panama has a democracy.

Did you support the invasion of Panama? If the country had listened to you, what kind of government would Panama likely have today?



Yeah, but the Japanese in 1945 were all Nascar Dads and Soccer Moms.

Give me a break.
You are referring to one country that was nuked twice and because of it offered up an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER...Germany was reduced to rubble before signing the Armistice, Panama is a fly speck of a Middle American country that was not an Islamic state... Panama was a success because it had a democratic history PRIOR to Noreiga... Iraq is the case where we gave the world court our argument that a preemptive war was required, otherwise evil ol' Saddam was going to get us or our allies in Europe for sure. That's what that little Texan said...then he changed his story AFTERWARD... "...yeah, but Saddam was a very bad man" ...yes, he surely was...but that's NOT what we told the world...we told the world that Saddam had the resources and the intention of launching a first strike against the good ol' US of A.... NOT! The people of Iraq are not rallying behind our troops as Bush said they would.... they want us out of their messed up country...a country WE further messed up by our invasion. Were it coordinated with an internal resistance movement, that would be a good thing...but it is NOT. Like Vietnam, a mess caused by Johnson, this campaign is doomed from the get go. By the way, the United States of America is a republic..NOT a democracy.

Comparing our situation in Iraq to post WWII Germany and Japan is laughable at best. We went ALL OUT to defeat both countries, NO HOLDS BARRED... In Iraq we went all out to disable their military but NOT TO EXECUTE a successful occupation. Panama... oh my, that IS funny. Crater Face is still in prison and the FORMER republic was restored. But keep on telling yourself such rationalizations and vote for more of the same...that's your privelege and right... and be sure to ask your senators and congressmen to vote for making that abortion, The Patriot Act a permanent vessel by which the Bill of Rights remains forever suspended.

[Smurf]

-Noreiga was a CIA agent, installed by the USA, and then ousted by the USA when he disobeyed orders from washington.
-Bush DID tell the world saddam had the resources to launch an attack against america, I dont know if he said Saddam intended to, but he implied it many times.
-by the time the nukes were dropped on Japan they were offering surrender with only one condition on it.
-The japanese were all fanatics during ww2, the japanese occupation was a success because MacArthur was a political genius, and the people loved him for it.
-The iraq occupation is a failure because Bush is seen as an enemy and the Americans ARNT helping the public this time. They're policing, not peacekeeping. Plus there are external forces encouraging rebellion and supplying weapons.
-Germany was also a republic before hitler, when hitler was killed the former republic was restored.


who is crater face?

[JohnDubYa]

You are referring to one country that was nuked twice and because of it offered up an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER...Germany was reduced to rubble before signing the Armistice, Panama is a fly speck of a Middle American country that was not an Islamic state... Panama was a success because it had a democratic history PRIOR to Noreiga...

You have an excuse for every example, but your original point ("since when is a democracy formed from the TOP down?") still stands as invalid -- democracies are often installed from the top down, and often by a conquering army. It is not unusual at all, and there is nothing to indicate it couldn't happen in Iraq. We'll just have to wait and see.

[JohnDubYa]

-Noreiga was a CIA agent, installed by the USA, and then ousted by the USA when he disobeyed orders from washington.

Irrelevant to the issue. Noriega WAS in power. He WAS a dictator. We did throw him out. Panama now has a democracy. Ergo, top-down democracies do occur.

I don't care if Noriega was Bush's grandfather, those are the facts.

-Bush DID tell the world saddam had the resources to launch an attack against america, I dont know if he said Saddam intended to, but he implied it many times.

"implied" usually means you don't have the references to back up your statement. It makes no difference, because your point is irrelevant to the issue.

-by the time the nukes were dropped on Japan they were offering surrender with only one condition on it.

Explain the relevance (and post links to back your claim).

The rest of your points are equally irrelevant. The issue is "Is it possible to install a democracy from the top down?" ABSOLUTELY. And nothing about the situation in Iraq makes such an event impossible. (Maybe HARDER, but I think we are up to the challenge.)

[Smurf]

So you dont know who crater face is either?

[Adam]

Which double-counted many casualties, and counted those that were killed by fellow Iraqis. As I said before, we already went through this.

gravenewworld, I think the original post asked for references.

Wow, now you're just flat-out lying. Try again.

www.iraqbodycount.net

[Adam]

Did you support the invasion of Panama? If the country had listened to you, what kind of government would Panama likely have today?

Ah... you know what the invasion of Panama was about, yes?

[phatmonky]

-The iraq occupation is a failure because Bush is seen as an enemy and the Americans ARNT helping the public this time. They're policing, not peacekeeping. Plus there are external forces encouraging rebellion and supplying weapons.


My friends who are on leave after a year in Iraq would argue different with you. They can't stop telling me how offensive it is to come back and see their work thrown in their face by the media, and then see people believe they are some how wrong in this, not helping!
When were you last in Iraq? Until you were there, I'm going to continue to take first hand accounts of what is happening, and you and the media will continue to be the 'new york times of January 7, 1946'

[Smurf]

I see where your coming from, but I know people who say they wont go back to Iraq if its the last thing they do, this is not cowardice they simply have no faith in their mission there. Soldiers will always be offended when people dont believe in their cause, it doesnt mean anything more.

A first hand account is when you see it yourself, your getting second hand accounts because your hearing it from people who saw it themselves.

[Smurf]

Now!

WHO IS CRATER FACE??

[phatmonky]

I see where your coming from, but I know people who say they wont go back to Iraq if its the last thing they do, this is not cowardice they simply have no faith in their mission there. Soldiers will always be offended when people dont believe in their cause, it doesnt mean anything more.

A first hand account is when you see it yourself, your getting second hand accounts because your hearing it from people who saw it themselves.
I'm sure many of the soldiers who came back from Germany after being told they how ashamed the Europeans were of them, felt the same way.
But when they tell me that they are training police forces and how the Kids learn English to be able to come talk to them, it's hardly the image of doomsday you and the media portray it as. When they tell me how the Iraqis protest Al Jazeera with signs that read "Lying Arab Media, This is not Insurgency", I have to wonder why I never see that on the media here.
And NONE of them think it's a lost war. My two good friends that are telling me all of this were stationed in Tikrit, not some Kurdish city. They have their gripes, but say things are quickly improving.

Touche. It's early.

[phatmonky]

Now!

WHO IS CRATER FACE??

http://www.arm.org/images/noriega.jpg

[Smurf]

I dont think its a doomsday at all, I just think its not going nearly as well as it could or should. I also dont think it should have happened at all but thats not the point.

And Some Do Think its a Faulty Cause! The media chooses what it covers, it doesnt invent these things, so dont tell me the CIA created all those videos to get Kerry Re-Elected.

[Smurf]

http://www.arm.org/images/noriega.jpg

I see I see.

[phatmonky]

I dont think its a doomsday at all, I just think its not going nearly as well as it could or should. I also dont think it should have happened at all but thats not the point.

And Some Do Think its a Faulty Cause! The media chooses what it covers, it doesnt invent these things, so dont tell me the CIA created all those videos to get Kerry Re-Elected.

You said it was a failure! I still assert it isn't, and won't be as long as people don't lose their nerve. Elections are 4 months away!!
That's a fallacy, and you know it. If I show pictures of the KKK and say that's all there is in America, you and anyone else with common sense would pay it no mind - and rightfully so.
Showing nothing but a fringe group in Iraq and their actions, as true coverage is disengenious, and IMO closer to a flat out lie. People dying is far more interesting than a school getting painted I guess.

[Smurf]

The media always did favour Violence over anything else. (you seem to think I watch CNN or am someway affiliated with it, I am not and I do not.)

I did say it was a failure, I dont think its a complete failure my post above describes my feelings about Iraq better, I in my earlier post i was merely typing what i was thinking at the time.

It seems to me you've only talked to soldiers who support the war in Iraq and are insulted by the media, it may be thats all you've met, but that doesnt mean at all that thats all there are or that they are the majority (although I believe they are, I dont think they're as small as you make out)

[FaverWillets]

Irrelevant to the issue. Noriega WAS in power. He WAS a dictator. We did throw him out. Panama now has a democracy. Ergo, top-down democracies do occur.

I don't care if Noriega was Bush's grandfather, those are the facts.



"implied" usually means you don't have the references to back up your statement. It makes no difference, because your point is irrelevant to the issue.



Explain the relevance (and post links to back your claim).

The rest of your points are equally irrelevant. The issue is "Is it possible to install a democracy from the top down?" ABSOLUTELY. And nothing about the situation in Iraq makes such an event impossible. (Maybe HARDER, but I think we are up to the challenge.)
OPINION...and we both have many...but neither of us can resolve OUR political differences in this forum. The very idea that a totally foreign power can install democracy in a politically and religiously variegated country like Iraq with its own concept of "democracy" under these conditions is sheer folly. Japan had an Emperor, a CENTRAL voice in the country, what he said was law... [and by your own words, McArthur was brilliant...who do we have in the Bush Administration who even has a semblance of a brain]....we don't enjoy anything remotely close to that kind of central command in Iraq nor do we enjoy that kind of occupation by anyone capable of uniting this country under ONE GOAL ... people in Iraq carry AK-47's as routinely as we carry cell phones here ... Bush and Powell both used the words PRE EMPTIVE WAR ... how does that IMPLY anything...IT SAYS IT PLAIN AND CLEAR... we strike them before they strike us... semantics on your part again... like the Bush Campaign that is engaged in total distortions of fact, outright lies and continued misinformation...the only way this idiot can win is to cheat AGAIN.

[Crater Face came from the play Grease... a nickname for the adversarial role played by someone with a face horribly pock marked by bad acne...anyone here ever SEE photographs of Noriega?]

You know what...the verbal pugilism is over for me. Neither of us is going to budge from our positions. Enjoy.

[JohnDubYa]

The very idea that a totally foreign power can install democracy in a politically and religiously variegated country like Iraq its own concept of "democracy" under these conditions is sheer folly.

Truth by Blatant Assertion. Back it up with some sound logic.

Japan had an Emperor, a CENTRAL voice in the country, what he said was law... we don't enjoy anything remotely close to that kind of central command in Iraq...

Germany didn't have an Emperor, and we installed a democracy in that country as well. (Except the Germans had sauerkraut. Iraqis don't eat sauerkraut. Therefore, I guess what worked in Germany cannot possibly work in Iraq.)

Again, I cited an example of a top-down democracy. One example is all that is needed to refute the claim that top-down democracies are impossible.

Iraq is not Panama, but that doesn't mean what worked in Panama cannot possibly work in Iraq.

Bush and Powell both used the words PRE EMPTIVE WAR ... how does that IMPLY anything...IT SAYS IT PLAIN AND CLEAR... we strike them before they strike us...

Do you have a link? I would like to see the context of their statements.

semantics... like the Bush Campaign that is engage in total distortions of fact, outright lies and continued misinformation...the only way this idiot can win is to cheat AGAIN.

Oh yeah, like THAT is relevant.

[Crater Face came from the play Grease... a nickname for the adversarial role played by someone with a face horribly pock marked by bad acne...anyone here ever SEE photographs of Noriega?]

Noriega's nickname was PINEAPPLE FACE.

[JohnDubYa]

Wow, now you're just flat-out lying. Try again.

www.iraqbodycount.net

I already pointed out the obvious mistakes on that site. But here goes again:

Look up Code k360, as one of many examples. The deaths were caused by a car bomb. I suppose we were loading our Humvees with H.E. and setting them off in crowds, heh?

Scan the database. If you pick out those Iraqi deaths caused by Iraqis, the number falls rapidly.

[Adam]

Dubya, once again, you never pointed out any errors there. The count deliberately includes all the deaths since it all began. And since you are so well-read regarding the numbers, perhaps you'd like to state the numbers actually killed directly by US personnel? And the numbers killed in such ways as street gang violence both before and after the invasion? I've given you the link. Feel free to go back there for a reminder.

[JohnDubYa]

The count deliberately includes all the deaths since it all began.

Sorry, but I am not going to hold our military responsible for every Iraqi that kills another Iraqi. To post body-count numbers without that crucial distinction is disingenuous.

The Web page is even more disingeneous when you consider that it did not count the bodies stacked up by Saddam's regime (Iraqis killing Iraqis) before we got there.

And since you are so well-read regarding the numbers, perhaps you'd like to state the numbers actually killed directly by US personnel?

I'm not doing your work for you. But scanning over the site I think the numbers are astonishingly low historically.

[JohnDubYa]

Ah... you know what the invasion of Panama was about, yes?

Yes I do. What's your point? How is it relevant to the argument?

[Adam]

Sorry, but I am not going to hold our military responsible for every Iraqi that kills another Iraqi. To post body-count numbers without that crucial distinction is disingenuous.

If the murder rate is 4 per 100,000 per year in your town with police there, then all the police leave and the rate goes up to 40/100,000/year, does the police activity have anything at all to do with the murder rate?


The Web page is even more disingeneous when you consider that it did not count the bodies stacked up by Saddam's regime (Iraqis killing Iraqis) before we got there.

Correct, it does not list the thousands in mass graves. I hope some day there will be an accurate count of such, if for no other reason than to provide some truth to those who may have lost family and such to Saddam. However, that lack in no way nullifies the listing of all the other deaths listed there.


I'm not doing your work for you.

Surely you can read something? Some day? Anything?


But scanning over the site I think the numbers are astonishingly low historically.

How many is enough?

[Adam]

Yes I do. What's your point? How is it relevant to the argument?

Since it was brought up earlier in the thread, and I guess is somehow already part of the topic... What do you think the Panama invasion was about?

[FaverWillets]

Since it was brought up earlier in the thread, and I guess is somehow already part of the topic... What do you think the Panama invasion was about?
For myself, of course, I am NOT a tree-hugging Democrat... and I am NOT an across the board pacifist... but in line with the apparent logic stream I am reading here about our invasion of Iraq and its mass graves... much like Kosovo before it, IF WE HAD TOLD THE UNITED NATIONS and our former European Allies that we needed an intervention in Iraq for the very similar reasons to our incursion in Kosovo I would not have had as many problems with this war...as it is, using the logic stream that I am reading here in favor of Bush and his band of merry war makers, shouldn't we not invade North Korea where mass graves also surely exist? What other country is next? I mean, I guess America is going to clean all the Dodge Cities around the world??? That Saddam was a very bad boy is undisputable, but our reasons for this war were based at the United Nations ENTIRELY on the "evidence" stated in the record by both Colin Powell, and George W. Bush... PRE EMPTIVE WAR was needed and quickly in order to stop Saddam from a first strike..why do some out here in this forum insist on demanding transcripts or links to what most of us witnessed in live telecasts from the UN at the time they were said? Smoke and mirrors.. WHY ARE WE IN IRAQ? What can be done about this mess now that Babushka has created it for "personal" reasons... he DID say, "...well, he [Saddam] tried to kill my dad." Yes, and dad tried to kill Saddam FIRST. Sheesh. Is there any hope for America's long term future in the world anymore???

[Smurf]

I don't get it, why the panama quote?

[FaverWillets]

Since it was brought up earlier in the thread, and I guess is somehow already part of the topic... What do you think the Panama invasion was about?
Who cares? It's over now. WE DID put that little tin horn dictator in place and as JohnDubya has said here WE had to clean up a mess of our own making. BOTH political parties are nuts!!! But on rare occasions, ONE of them, doesn't matter which, screws up and does something right. Panama was right. So was Granada. Iraq II on the other hand was done for "reasons" that were stated in the public record that later turned out to be ...shall we say, incorrect [<-- just to be overly generous for the moment to Mr. Bush and his father's old Cabinet]. In mid stride, we found the use of the term Weapons of Mass Destruction suddenly ending as MASS GRAVES replaced it. We can't, as a nation, continue to direct our foreign policy with such incompetence.

[studentx]

Correct, it does not list the thousands in mass graves. I hope some day there will be an accurate count of such, if for no other reason than to provide some truth to those who may have lost family and such to Saddam.

Thousands? Hundreds of thousands.

[JohnDubYa]

If the murder rate is 4 per 100,000 per year in your town with police there, then all the police leave and the rate goes up to 40/100,000/year, does the police activity have anything at all to do with the murder rate?

I don't know. The situation needs to be examined further to nail down cause/effect.

But regardless, I don't see the relevance of your analogy.

However, that lack in no way nullifies the listing of all the other deaths listed there.

Without the context of what happened previous to our involvement, such body-count measurements are meaningless. How can we tell if the US involvement produced more deaths if we have no idea how many would have been killed anyway? It's like posting radiation measurements without a background count.

[JohnDubYa]

We should all keep in mind the horrific loss of life during the Iran-Iraq war, as well as due to the sanctions. A little perspective doesn't hurt.

Here is one estimate from an (admittedly) conservative Web page.


Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) -- Figures widely disputed but probably between 500,000 - 1 million deaths; Iraqis 2-375,000, Iranians 3-600,000

1987-8 "Anfal Campaign" against the Kurds -- 200,000 according to the Kurds. 50-100,000 according to Human Right’s Watch. These include 6-7,000 deaths from chemical poisoning with mustard gas, Sarin and VX, in Halabja on or around 16 March 1988.


First Gulf War (incl. Operation Desert Storm) Jan - Feb 1991 -- 20-100,000 Iraqi soldiers and 2,300 civilian deaths. United States: 269 soldiers killed


1991 suppression of the Kurdish insurrection Northern Iraq -- Thousands of Iraqi Kurds died.

1991 suppression of the Marsh Arab rebellion Southern Iraq -- 30,000 to 60,000 deaths

Iraqi political executions -- An estimated 3,000 prisoners (mostly political) have been executed since 1997.

Deaths due to UN sanctions -- Initial reports (Lancet 1995) of sanctions causing the deaths of 567,000 Iraqi children were an overestimate. Recent estimates (Richard Garfield) for the cumulative total of excess deaths among children under five between 1990 and 2000 are approximately 350,000.

The US/UK liberation of Iraq April 2003 -- US and British forces 136 dead. Iraqi forces 2,320 (US estimates). Iraqi civilians 1,250 (Iraqi estimates).

These numbers will of course rise as the war goes on.

Jim Thornton, Nottingham, 12 April 2003

http://www.iconservatives.org.uk/recent_iraqi_war_deaths.htm

If the deaths due to the sanctions are anywhere close to being accurate, how can anyone condemn the loss of civilian life that ultimately led to the withdrawing of the sanctions?

[Adam]

Without the context of what happened previous to our involvement, such body-count measurements are meaningless.
Do you think those deaths are meaningless to their surviving spouses and relatives?

[Adam]

If the deaths due to the sanctions are anywhere close to being accurate, how can anyone condemn the loss of civilian life that ultimately led to the withdrawing of the sanctions?
You're looking at it the wrong way. The deaths caused by sanctions are also to be laid at the feet of those who made the sanctions.

[JohnDubYa]

You're looking at it the wrong way. The deaths caused by sanctions are also to be laid at the feet of those who made the sanctions.

I thought you liked the United Nations. By invading Iraq, George W. undid the sanctions imposed by the United Nations.


Do you think those deaths are meaningless to their surviving spouses and relatives?

Whose opinions matter more? Surviving relatives of those killed by the US Army, or surviving relatives of those killed by Saddam Hussein and the sanctions? Why did you only single out the former? (Possible bias, perhaps?)

[JohnDubYa]

By the way, Adam, I didn't say the DEATHS were meaningless. I said the body-counts (that is, statistics) were meaningless.

[Adam]

I thought you liked the United Nations. By invading Iraq, George W. undid the sanctions imposed by the United Nations.

The sanctions were driven from day one by the USA. The sanctions killed people. The invasion, part of which meant the end of those sanctions, killed people. None of it is good.

My opinion of the UN had been stated several times.


Whose opinions matter more? Surviving relatives of those killed by the US Army, or surviving relatives of those killed by Saddam Hussein and the sanctions? Why did you only single out the former? (Possible bias, perhaps?)

Both are important. And the reasons for discussing the deaths caused by the USA invasion have been covered extensively in many threads. Including this one.

[Adam]

By the way, Adam, I didn't say the DEATHS were meaningless. I said the body-counts (that is, statistics) were meaningless.

Ah. How nice that you can sit there thousands of KM away and separate the deaths from the numbers.

[JohnDubYa]

How nice that you can sit there thousands of KM away and separate the deaths from the numbers.

You really don't understand the meaning of statistics, do you?

The sanctions were driven from day one by the USA.

The sanctions were voted on, and imposed by, the United Nations.

[Smurf]

how pointless this thread has become.

just another battleground for the DubYa vs Smart people war.

[Adam]

Yeah, that's about it. :zzz:

[JohnDubYa]

Smurf, cheerleader tryouts ended two days ago.