News Bush's Successes

  • Thread starter Gza
  • Start date
464
1
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.
 
JohnDubYa said:
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.
 
310
2
-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?
 
464
1
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.
 
464
1
-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.)
 
310
2
So you dont know who crater face is either?
 
15
0
JohnDubYa said:
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
 
15
0
JohnDubYa said:
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?
 
55
2
Smurf said:
-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'
 
310
2
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.
 
310
2
Now!

WHO IS CRATER FACE??
 
55
2
Smurf said:
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.
 
310
2
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.
 
Last edited:
55
2
Smurf said:
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.
 
310
2
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)
 
JohnDubYa said:
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.
 
Last edited:
464
1
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.
 
464
1
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.
 
15
0
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.
 
464
1
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.
 
464
1
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?
 
15
0
JohnDubYa said:
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?
 
15
0
JohnDubYa said:
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?
 

Related Threads for: Bush's Successes

  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
2
Replies
49
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
55
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Top