Out of curiosity... is anybody who is posting in this thread a veteran? And if so, have you served in combat? If you are/have then you will understand more how intelligence is gathered and used to make tactical decisions. A few responses in the spirit of debate: 1). Gas prices have been rising for some time now. It comes down to not only instability of the oil rich regions (to include hurricanes) but also to supply and demand. Good points on the use of alternative fuel sources. But I don't buy that Bush is out to gain foreign oil for his benefit. Conventional wisdom would say that using other countries' oil would only harm his bottom line, domestically speaking. Sort of like only having one store in your town... they get to set the prices as they see fit because there is no competition. Then Walmart comes to town and everything goes to Hell. 2). We went into Iraq with the belief that there were WMDs. This determination was made with intelligence gathered from different sources (aerial, telecom eavesdropping, survellance, etc.) This evidence was then presented to a bipartisan legislature and members from both sides of aisle voted according to the evidence presented at the time. As I have posted during previous discussions regarding this matter... even Saddam's most senior officers were convinced that they possessed WMDs. They didn't find out that Saddam was blowing smoke up their @sses until coalition forces were knocking on Baghdad's door. This supports why there was faulty intel. The reason we are there now is because to leave at this time would only create a worse environment that we came into. I do agree that we should leave as soon as humanly possible and that we shouldn't continue sacrificing lives for a country who's majority has never lived a free life. 3) Republicans are synonymous with "Big Government". Hence they spend more money. Can't say that I agree with this totally but I do agree with maintaining our military and national security (ICE, Border Protection, etc.). Particularly since our military members are poorly paid. Perhaps if we were to require our young men and women serve at least two years of military service like many countries around the world do. 4) The Stock Market is now at record highs. Higher than any previous President's tenure. However in counterpoint, debt is also up. 5) I have received tax breaks under Bush, something I didn't receive under Clinton (For the record, I am middle class).
How can you put the blame on Bush for the loss of hundreds of soldiers in Iraq.....There is NO draft, and hasnt been since the 1970's. People who join the military choose to go on their own and defend our freedoms. My best friend has been in Texas, Japan, Korea and is now fighting in Iraq so that we can leave peacefully and have rights to do random things like post on a foum. It's funny you criticize Bush for "sending them over there" when it was the democrats who tried to reinstate the draft in 2004. Then, the dems ran around saying that when Bush was re-elected in 2004, he would "secretly" reinstate the draft....Today, in 2007, joining a branch of the military is still 100% voluntary. Now its the dems who are complaining about soldiers fighting overseas. Such hypocrisy it makes me sick.
1. Agreed that oil prices will naturally rise with or without Bush. I just dont like his stance on alternative energy programs or more specifically his reluctance to do a whole hell of a lot about it. 2. I was in support of the effort to get rid of WMDs in Iraq also. I sincerely think that he was just acting on the info he was given however bad it was. I just think the shift of focus to the liberation of the people of Iraq to save face instead of packing up our soldiers and bringing them home is not so great. 3. I agree that the military is very poorly funded when it comes down to the troop level. Our soldiers should not have to pay for their own lifesaving equipment while the secret service protecting the President has every luxury and convenience they could possibly need. 4. I dont know much about the market so I wont chime in here 5. My tax situation has not changed one bit with GW in office. I did get the rebate check under his first term though only to find out that I got less on the next years tax return. All good points you brought up though.
I can't believe I'm going to dive into this but here it goes... *L* First I'll say that even though I may not agree with everything Bush stands for I would have voted for him, if I was American and not Canadian... and believe me when I say that we get alot of news about what goes on in the US so I'm not just talking out of my A$$. Here's my 2 pesos. George bush is not the only person that stands to lose out if you move away from oil. There are thousands of people who work in that industry. Imagine the layoffs. Feul isn't the only product of oil. http://www.lmoga.com/refoutput.htm Your (and our) entire country is dependant on oil. So... would the price have still gone up if Bush had lost? Who knows. I think it would have. Ask your self this.... would 9/11 have been avoided if Bush didn't win? Not likely. Bush isn't the cause of increased oil prices... world instability is. Just because the said that they didn't find any WMDs doesn't mean they weren't there. Needle in a haystack comes to mind. A country is a huge place to look for WMDs. Hell they still can't find Osama. On that note.. sure Osama wasn't Iraqi.. but he isn't from Afganistan either. Taking Sadam out of office was the right thing to do. Even most Iraqis believed that. Just like taking out the Taliban is right. Was it executed poorly.. sure. The USA is great at war fighting but doesn't have any experience in nation building. As to your comment about the 80's... basically the US is damned if they do.. damned if they don't. And that's just wrong. The economy is only good if people believe the economy will be good. Productivity of war has some impact but for the most part it has to do with peoples beliefs.... if they believe that a bank will fold then they will pull their money out of that bank and end up causing it to fold. There is alot of contraversy over Iraqi and over personal safety in the US... The stock market did find with Clinton because his major issues were personal. His fooling around with Monica has no bearing on the price of wheat.... where as 9/11 impacted the entire world. Ok... I won't fight you on this one..... I'm not religous and believe in the seperation of religion and state... this is one of those things that I dont' agree with. But I'd still vote for Bush because I honestly believe he is doing what he can to make the US (and the world) a safer place. Only history will tell.
When they came out with their intelligence reports saying that Iraq had WMD it felt like a smoke screen to me. Of course I personally don't know whether or not Iraq ever had any. But the reports came out at just the right moment and looked to me like they gave Bush the perfect excuse to go into Iraq with the guns blazing. The timing was too good! I think what I'm saying is that I never believed those reports of WMD. I thought it was part of a smoke and mirrors act by the Whitehouse to convince everyone going into Iraq was justified. I'm sorry, but I never bought into it, I just never believed those reports. So now ya'll are gonna tell me I SHOULD believe everything I read right?
Only if it comes from the National Enquirer. :lol: Certainly you shouldn't believe everything that you read. But everything looks differently in hindsight. At the time most lawmakers (politicians) voted in favor of action because of the intelligence they had been presented with. Of course now many are saying something different as they have seen otherwise. But almost everybody at the time was convinced that Iraq possessed WMDs. Apparently the only one in Iraq that knew better was Saddam himself. Here's a link to a story that Time Magazine presented back in October 2004. www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101041018-713169,00.html I've said it before and I'll say it again... No matter how you feel about Bush, there will be better and there will be worse to follow.
haha were trying steve, no personal shots are to be thrown around at other forum members thats the number one rule of this holy war!! haha
bush bashing ok- maybe he is not the all-time greatest president, but here's some food for thought: since 9/11, we have not been attacked- there is a reason for this. our country and our leaders, despite having to fight groups like moveon.org and the ACLU, are doing their best to keep us safe- and it is not an easy job; maybe our strategy in iraq was not perfect, but the alternative- leaving saddam in power- was much worse. for those like ted kennedy, john kerry and al gore who think that we can "talk" to the terrorists and their leaders- well, we tried that with another leader in 1938- and look what happened. regardless of your affiliation, do you really want to see the Iranian leader make good on his promise to "wipe Israel off the map"- who do you think he will come after next? that's right- the US- and he has stated his hatred for the US already.
I agree......I felt the same way. There was a thread here at cancuncare when the war first broke & folks were acting like me and a few others, who weren't buying the BS, had lost our marbles for not beleiveing the hype. I knew they weren't gonna find any WMD and to "stay the course" as Bush wants is costing us more lives than all of 9/11. We've already lost more lives than 9/11 and if there is a surge in troops, it's only going to get worse. Michelle
