Bush's Accomplishments: A Look at His 4-Year Term

  • News
  • Thread starter Gza
  • Start date
In summary, Bush successfully turned a 2001 fiscal year surplus of 127.3 billion dollars into a 157.8 billion dollar deficit in less than one year.
  • #36
Now!

WHO IS CRATER FACE??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Smurf said:
I see where your coming from, but I know people who say they won't 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 don't believe in their cause, it doesn't 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.
 
  • #38
Smurf said:
Now!

WHO IS CRATER FACE??

noriega.jpg
 
  • #39
I don't think its a doomsday at all, I just think its not going nearly as well as it could or should. I also don't think it should have happened at all but that's not the point.

And Some Do Think its a Faulty Cause! The media chooses what it covers, it doesn't invent these things, so don't tell me the CIA created all those videos to get Kerry Re-Elected.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
phatmonky said:
noriega.jpg

I see I see.
 
  • #41
Smurf said:
I don't think its a doomsday at all, I just think its not going nearly as well as it could or should. I also don't think it should have happened at all but that's not the point.

And Some Do Think its a Faulty Cause! The media chooses what it covers, it doesn't invent these things, so don't 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.
 
  • #42
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 don't 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 that's all you've met, but that doesn't mean at all that that's all there are or that they are the majority (although I believe they are, I don't think they're as small as you make out)
 
  • #43
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:
  • #44
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.
 
  • #45
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.
 
  • #46
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.
 
  • #47
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.
 
  • #48
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?
 
  • #49
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?
 
  • #50
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?
 
  • #51
Adam said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #52
I don't get it, why the panama quote?
 
  • #53
Adam said:
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.
 
  • #54
Adam said:
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.
 
  • #55
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.
 
  • #56
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?
 
  • #57
JohnDubYa said:
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?
 
  • #58
JohnDubYa said:
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.
 
  • #59
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?)
 
  • #60
By the way, Adam, I didn't say the DEATHS were meaningless. I said the body-counts (that is, statistics) were meaningless.
 
  • #61
JohnDubYa said:
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.
 
  • #62
JohnDubYa said:
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.
 
  • #63
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.
 
  • #64
how pointless this thread has become.

just another battleground for the DubYa vs Smart people war.
 
  • #65
Yeah, that's about it. :zzz:
 
  • #66
Smurf, cheerleader tryouts ended two days ago.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
741
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
802
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
31
Views
7K
Replies
45
Views
6K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
Back
Top