George W. Bush knows...

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Flyhigher, Aug 9, 2007.

  1. Flyhigher

    Flyhigher Guest

    The British lost to insurgents after 12 years in a post WWII Mayala... The US lost to insurgents after 10 years in Vietnam... The Soviets lost to insurgents after 9 years in a Afghanistan...

    Bush should admit his gross error in this invasion and bring our troops home now...
    If Bush doesn't exit now, he will have to find another reason down the road after more of our soldiers are killed...

    Bush knows this is a no win scenario for his administration...

  2. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Why is this different than your other thread about the soldiers and Bush? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to shut you up, I just don't care to see all these threads basically saying the same thing, "Get rid of Bush, bring troops home."
  3. Swiftstrike

    Swiftstrike Registered Member

    Yeah Fly what you should do is just make one long argument with your material and points all together instead of making several posts that are all similar.

    But yes Bush probably realizes this and he is going to dump Iraq onto the next president. However I think he will make it worse for them. I really feel bad for whoever inherits Iraq.
  4. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    Yes, but judging, that the Soviets knew about the Americans, and the Americans knew about the British, this knowledge isn't much of a deterrent, is it?
  5. joshua41

    joshua41 Guest

    Gross error in this invasion? What is the error? Saddam was a rogue dictator who ruthlessly ruled his country and produced weapons against U.N. regulations. All this combined with his anti american attitudes made him a threat to us. George saw this and realized his constitution responsibilities by dealing with this threat.

    And I'll tell you what's going to get our troops killed-a Congress that is reluctant to fund the military.
  6. Kazmarov

    Kazmarov For a Free Scotland

    You know what's going to get our troops killed? WAR.

    Don't pin this on congress, soldiers have been dying since day 1, and Bush is the only common factor between the congress of 2003 and the congress of now.

    That prior example has shown us that insurgencies can't be defeated. How many Viet Cong did we kill all together? 2 million. And we weren't even close to defeating them.

    So? We've produced a country that four years after we toppled his regime

    *has an electrical and water grid on the verge of collapse
    *is the fourth most unstable country in the world
    *has at least 60,000 civilian casualities

    He militarized. Great. But there weren't WMDs, so we're left with the idea of freeing a country.

    Four years have gone by. Is Iraq better? No, the data I've provided clearly show's it's worse, if anything.
  7. joshua41

    joshua41 Guest

    You know what is going to get us killed? Not dealing with threats.

    I was referring to more troops dying because of Congress. Obviously troops have been dying the whole time and I don't blame Congress for the casulties previously taken (it's the price of protection and freedom)- but the original poster's post referred to more troops dying. I am explaining why they will die at a higher rate if issues like this are not resolved.
    Insurgencies like countries can be defeated. The vietnam war was not a matter of fighting an insurgency- is was the matter of fighting a country. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan wasn't even an example of a country fighting an insurgency, so you fell to prove your point being that many of your "previous examples" don't line up with what you're saying.

    However, the presently we are dealing with an insurgent army in Iraq. We are not losing to them, if we were losing we wouldn't have established a government. There is still threatening opposition but it isn't chasing our troops out of Iraq. So, how are we losing? If we were losing then why are civilian casulties declining?
    if we are losing then why are us troop casulties declining?

    As to your bottom three listings, the idea of an unstable country is subjective- you can get a panel of many experts together to analyze the information and they could draw a different conclusion.

    While there have been casulties on the United State's watch- the U.S. isn't to blame. We are trying a best to secure the area and create a safe enviroment for civilians but are being interrupted by insurgents who are doing nothing but hurting their own country. Also, the small amount of casulties the U.S. has caused is NOTHING compared to the amount in Saddam's regime or civilian casulties caused by insurgents.

    Four years have gone by, and we are safer and there has been progress in Iraq.
  8. Flyhigher

    Flyhigher Guest

    It's not that simple, Constantine, and if I were to put Bush and his numerous mistakes onto one thread, it would be the longest thread in the history of political forums...

    I will try and refrain from just Bush bashing in the future...

    Ok, what about Darfur? What about North Korea? If you think we only invaded Iraq to save the people from an evile dictator, then I would have to ask about the other countries we didn't invade to save the people...

    Please read my previous post...
  9. joshua41

    joshua41 Guest

    Sanctions forced N Korea into giving up it's nuclear program, while sanctions didn't cause Saddam to stop his.
    Also, I believe sanctions have cooled off Iran.
  10. Flyhigher

    Flyhigher Guest

    Really, I don't buy it... North Korea got what they were after from the start, cash...
    The US really went all-out to convince NK to give up their nuclear program, however, the much needed cash North Korea was seeking is now in their bank...

Share This Page