Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?

  1. Feb 9, 2004 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Some of you may already know that I have a particular dislike for the Bush's. I won't get into that here but I believe that my opinion is well founded. When the claims of WMD's was made, due to my opinion about the President I was very, very, skeptical. I realized that my opinion may be inappropriate in this case, and what to do anyway? Beyond protests and letter writing there is not much that could be done.

    Now we hear testimony from the CIA that uses very different language than that used by Bush before the invasion.

    If the President lied in order to justify this war, what should be done? Keep in mind that he threw away the greatest good will shown this country in my lifetime - due to 911 - and he may be responsible for, what, a thousand dead American soldiers, and half a million dead Iraqi's who were probably forced to fight. Also, when a soldier is sworn in he swears to defend the constitution. This is his or her primary job. Lying to congress is unconstitutional.

    If he lied I think he should be tried for war crimes; and for crimes against the people of the United States.

    One footnote: I think the Democrats smell blood.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 9, 2004 #2
    I think he should be forced to work a job for the first time in his life, for the wages that he seems to think can sustain a family.
  4. Feb 9, 2004 #3
    A little less hyperbole please. I can't stand Bush either, but I don't believe in the noble lie. More reasonable numbers would be around 500 Americans and 10,000 Iraqis. Those may be underestimates, but they're high enough as it is.
  5. Feb 9, 2004 #4
    5.15 can sustain a family. I know plenty doing it.
  6. Feb 9, 2004 #5
    On what ground will you charge him with war crimes??

    The war is legal, even if it's simply based on the fact that it can be considered a continuation of the first gulf war (due to the lack of criteria met for a continuance of the cease fire).

    Just over 500 Americans, and about 10-15,000 Iraqis.

    I still support the war, but if false evidence was use, I fully support reprecussions to the link in the chain that caused it. However I'm not sitting here just looking for an excuse to blame Bush :)
  7. Feb 9, 2004 #6
    With credit cards? You are lying or wrong, I think. Anyone making 5.15 an hour is eaither working 3 jobs or is getting some sort of government assistance, if they have a family.
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2004
  8. Feb 9, 2004 #7
    10,000 iraqis? lol, the US was responsible for just over 100,000 Iraqis before they even took Bagdhad! I would say a half million is a good guess...

    The cost of this war is a little higher then you thought?
  9. Feb 9, 2004 #8
    Proof of 100,000?
    A good guess? hahaha! I won't elaborate on that.

    Or it's a little lower than YOU GUESSED?
  10. Feb 9, 2004 #9
    What do you mean with credit cards? As in they are using credit cards to pay for stuff, or credit cards as an added expense?

    I am doign neither.
    My mom raised my youngest brother and myself (3 of us) for several years on minimum wage. She made right about 1000 each month. That paid for our house, food, and clothes from the goodwill.

    It's interesting that you mention government assistance, because I do believe that is still going on under Bush (since my mom is now raising my youngest brother on said assistance. )

    Two adults and one child can live and be raised on minimum wage. A man who is willing to put in a hard days work can make double that anywhere in the United States by working unskilled construction. If it's just a woman and a child, well, my mom managed with two of us on that situation.

    The only occurence that this isn't possible is too many kids for the income (a problem for anyone, at any income level).
  11. Feb 9, 2004 #10
    I even found a link, in which the Author purports that Saddam wasn't so bad and had stopped hurting his own people. This should prove the link isn't some "vast right wing conspiracy" ;)

    Iraqi military deaths = 13,500-45,000
    Iraqi civilians killed during the war (20 March – May 1, 2003) = 5,708-7,356
    Iraqi civilians killed post-conflict (May 2 – October 20, 2003) = 2,049- 2,209
    US and UK combatants killed during the war (20 March – May 1, 2003) = 172
    US and UK combatants killed post-conflict (May 2 – October 20, 2003) = 222

    Even on the highest side, we're no where near your numbers :)
  12. Feb 9, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I don't think that Bush will suffer any more than following in his father's footsteps -- loosing the presidential election.

    If he does win but the Dems carry the senate, then there may be impeachment hearings.

    Hopefully whomever the Democrats select as a candidate will be smart enough to push the issues that are traditionally republican where Bush is also weak - specificially, fiscal responsibility.
  13. Feb 9, 2004 #12
    What makes you believe that the dems will carry the senate? Or was that just an option?
  14. Feb 9, 2004 #13
    Maybe we should try Clinton and Bush at the same time to save the tax payers some money.

    WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

    The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

    "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

    Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

    "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

    "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

    Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
  15. Feb 9, 2004 #14
    So long as we get BOTH, I don't mind a bit.
  16. Feb 9, 2004 #15
    HAHAHA, Oddly, I find myself agreeing with this.
    We can let Clinton go kiss ass and make things like the war in Iraq okay, while Bush inacts foreign policy that isn't popular, but is needed ;)
  17. Feb 9, 2004 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Note that "If [Bush] wins and the Dems carry the senate" does not indicate that I think either of them is likely.
  18. Feb 9, 2004 #17
    "That was just an option" would have sufficed.
  19. Feb 9, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The democrats may win the presidency and senate, they may win just the presidency, but it is virtually certain that they will not lose the presidency AND win the senate. To win the senate, they'll need big coattails in quite a few states.

    I don't think anything more serious than losing an election will happen to Bush, if that. I don't think he's done anything illegal. Stupid, dishonest, divisive, cruel, greedy - yes, he has been all of those, but those are not crimes.

  20. Feb 9, 2004 #19
    Source, OneWorld.net

    100,000 before entering bagdhad

    Source, The Pentagon

    I remember a year ago while watching 'The Factor' they had a retired military colonel by the name of Cowell on. He was an official spokesman from the Pentagon. O'Reilly has just finished interviewing him about what was going to take place next in the invasion and just before they went to commercial Bill asked the Colonel what the death count was in Iraq was for Iraqis. The Colonel responded, I have been given the clearance to say that the death count has risen over 100,000. O'Reilly looked surprised, and a little ashamed, and then he proceeded to go along with the commercial break.

    I remember that molment vividly because I knew at that molment I had heard something I shouldnt have. You never hear of the numbers, and when something does leak, it is erased. I tried my hardest to find the transcript of that show but couldnt.

    I would take this leaked number far more seriously than some oneworld.net article anyday.
  21. Feb 9, 2004 #20

    What is oneworld.net?? I'm quoting http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1111-10.htm

    -- Between 21,000 and 55,000 people have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, according to a new report that also warned of rapidly deteriorating health conditions for those who survived.

    London-based Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), concluded that the war's continuing impact--particularly the failure of occupation authorities to ensure security-- has resulted in a further deterioration of the Iraqi population's health status. IPPNW's U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility, joined in the report's release Tuesday. The report's funding was provided by Oxfam and the Polden-Puckham Charitable Foundation.

    This isn't exactly a group trying to cover anything. On the contrary it would behoove them to inflate the numbers.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: How far down will Bush go; how far should he go?