Why war?

I don''t think Bush sees the world in Black and White.

He wants to convince people to support him. You do that by being definitive and concise. Not by being wishy washy and saying "although Saddam has a family and a wife and kids, and a wonderful mother that makes some of the best hummous around, I think his killing of loads of Kurds is pretty bad. Maybe. I dunno. What do you guys think? Should we like.. attack or something? I''m not too sure but hey let''s try it out."

Obviously not.

Yes... Bush has to appear strong otherwise he will be labeled weak...

I think he appears like an idiot. Talking down to the American public. But that is just my opinion :-)

quote:

---

Original post by smokes
I think he appears like an idiot. Talking down to the American public. But that is just my opinion :-)

---

Exactly, just your opinion.

Bush is a strong leader. He''s taken alot of flak on his purported intelligence levels, but you don''t have to be intelligent to be a leader. I also recognize that alot of people on these forums (note: not all, but alot) don''t understand, have never been involved in, or fail to realize the dynamics of a team environment and the dynamics of leadership. Bush is determined, is quick on decisions with the intelligence he is given, has respect, and most importantly has a vision. Those are some of the things that leadership is about, among other qualities that Bush has. Ultimately, he knows how to work in a team and make that team effective.

He does not talk down. He talks with. Maybe your Denmark media has shown otherwise, I don''t know, but if Bush talked down on the American people he wouldn''t have the huge support he has for this war. (a few hundred thousand across the nation protesting is miniscule to the 250+ million living in the nation)

Kevin:

I understand the need for the american public to support their leader in times of war. But to the rest of the world bush appears ignorant and rude. He doesn''t give a damn about the environment and is not doing anything about the middle east conflict (other than giving the Israelis free hands). If America is to be the "policeman" of the world your leader must appear to be wise and tolerant. My "Denmark" media is not biased. Actually Denmark is "officially" one of the few other countries in the coalition, even though 63% of the population is against it. We are even going to send a warship and submarine to help your cause (which is stupid because they are pretty useless compared US military).
Your current foreign policy is pissing off, most of the world. Earlier your foreign policy only pissed of the arabians, which is the primary cause why you have suffered from terrorist attacks. Now you are pissing on large parts of europe, russia and china.
I understand your team theory but in my eyes it only makes him look more like a puppet in the hands of the US industry and his father. You are saying that he does not need to be intelligent because other people will take the decisions and tell him what to say.
Im beginning to think that Bush needs to constantly wage war because he is incapable diplomacy as well as solving your domestics problems (the economy, health care etc).
After President Bush was elected (or was he?!?, have anyone ever gotton to the bottom of this?) the world has become more unstable and unsafe. I realize that solely blaming this on Bush is stupid, but in these times it is important to have a strong AND intelligent leader. Not a warhappy incompentent puppet with a lot of economical interests to protect.
Axis of evil against the good empire.. great for a starwars film (although empires in fiction tends to be bad) but in no way a good description of a new world order which requires diplomacy tolerance and emphaty.
I hope though that if the US under the Bush administration is to clean up all the dictatorships around the world by agressive means, your next president will be more peaceful (not another chuck norris inspired religious texas gunslinger) and intelligent. He will then be able to streghten the new weak democracies and do something about the environment.

Well said, Kev.

To expound on that, if Bush talked down to the American people, would he have as high an approval rating as he does?

Furthermore, would nearly 70% of the nation be in favor of the war?

Like Kevin said, being a leader involves being able to make informed decisions based on information given to you by your advisors. If you take a look at the president''s advisors, he has some of the most intelligent people ever to be involved in government: Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. The point is, because he is surrounded by intelligent people, he can make intelligent decisions. So give him a little bit of credit in that.

Besides, what I don''t understand is why all the staunch antiwar people are always saying things along the lines of "WHY CAN''T YOU SEE THAT MY OPINION IS RIGHT AND YOURS IS WRONG???" Grow up. Just because you have an opinion doesn''t make it any more right than someone else''s. The other opinion may not be any more right than yours as well.

Finally, don''t think I''m prowar. I''m not antiwar either. I just get really pissed off when people say stupid things on either side.

quote:

---

He doesn''t give a damn about the environment and is not doing anything about the middle east conflict

---

How do you know he "doesn''t give a damn"? Are you him? Can you read his mind? Just because his opinions differ from yours doesn''t mean he doesn''t care.

As for the mideast, apparently you haven''t been paying attention to the news lately. Bush has been supporting the creation of a Palestinian Prime Minister, and calling it a move in the direction for a Palestinian state. He is most certainly trying, and if you don''t believe this, look at old news articles. Don''t just claim he''s not doing anything because you don''t like him.

quote:

---

You are saying that he does not need to be intelligent because other people will take the decisions and tell him what to say.

---

That''s not what he said at all. He is saying that he has the kind of intelligence involved with being a leader. There is more than one kind of intelligence, and obviously, you lack at least one of them.

quote:

---

After President Bush was elected (or was he?!?, have anyone ever gotton to the bottom of this?) the world has become more unstable and unsafe.

---

Yes, he was elected. Read the Constitution.

And are you implying that September 11 was Bush''s fault? If so, you have got to be kidding me. Bush had only been in office for less than a year. Do you honestly believe that he alone had pissed off the terrorists enough in that short a time for them to plot the biggest terror attack in history? Or is it more likely that a combination of decades of foreign policy caused it? Hmm, let''s think about that one...

Hmm. 70% of the population in favor of the war? I''ve seen too many polls that contradict that. Even though I understand that polls and statistics can never accurately state the opinions of the public, it seems rather suspicious to me.

I think that after thousands of years of wars, we should finally clue in that war solves nothing. I think we should have clued after the very first war. War is an extremely serious issue, and I doubt 90% of the population understands that. Even I can''t fully understand the horror of war. I suppose it makes it easier for the public to "understand" war when politicians and media label the enemy as "bad" and us as "good". Then they really are bringing the innocent people and "enemy" down to the level of orcs and trolls. Then it''s not so bad when they say "Were going to war with Iraq". You think about how in the movies, we win, and it''s as easy as pie. And besides, if they are really hidious orcs and trolls they deserve to die. Who are we to decide whether someone dies or not? It seems as though we will never stray from our thurst of playing god and having power.

What I find ironic is that both Saddam and Bush talked about how God would help them win the war (in one way or another).

But really, now that the war is on, what is there to do? Can''t even watch TV cause all you see is people analyzing what''s happening 24/7. Sounds like a snore to me. What disappoints me the most, I think, is that people never grow up. This is just a huge game with guns and missles. This is complete childs play, and I find it utterly pathetic. I for one, am glad that my country is not part of this war, and would be extremely ashamed and embarrassed of my country if it was.

¬_¬

quote:

---

Original post by Khawk
He does not talk down. He talks with.

---

If giving ultimatums like "you''re either with us or against us" isn''t talking down, I don''t know what is.

As for the intelligence of the Bush cabinet, during Bush''s first year in office, it looked like many of them couldn''t find their ass with their hands. Even after the events of 9/11 gave them a rallying point to focus on, Bush cabinet members would quite often make controdictory policy pronouncements - for a while there Powell was getting painted as a fool for putting up with it too. Even today, some have commented that Powell''s effort to build a coalition behind this war were hamstrung because he had to stay in Washington to watch his back.

quote:

---

Original post by Khawk
Bush is a strong leader . He''s taken alot of flak on his purported intelligence levels, but you don''t have to be intelligent to be a leader. I also recognize that alot of people on these forums (note: not all, but alot) don''t understand, have never been involved in, or fail to realize the dynamics of a team environment and the dynamics of leadership. Bush is determined, is quick on decisions with the intelligence he is given, has respect, and most importantly has a vision. Those are some of the things that leadership is about, among other qualities that Bush has. Ultimately, he knows how to work in a team and make that team effective.

He does not talk down. He talks with. Maybe your Denmark media has shown otherwise, I don''t know, but if Bush talked down on the American people he wouldn''t have the huge support he has for this war. (a few hundred thousand across the nation protesting is miniscule to the 250+ million living in the nation)

---

And what''s your point? By your definition, Hitler was a great leader as well. Are you saying that these traits are a good thing? Are you saying that it''s okay to have an idiot in charge of the largest military of the world?

quote:

---

How do you know he "doesn''t give a damn"? Are you him? Can you read his mind? Just because his opinions differ from yours doesn''t mean he doesn''t care.

---

Well he refused to sign the kyoto agreement saying something stupid about "not being able to preserve the american lifestyle" which means that you must be able to consume 3-4 times the energy per citizen than any other western country.

quote:

---

As for the mideast, apparently you haven''t been paying attention to the news lately. Bush has been supporting the creation of a Palestinian Prime Minister, and calling it a move in the direction for a Palestinian state. He is most certainly trying, and if you don''t believe this, look at old news articles. Don''t just claim he''s not doing anything because you don''t like him.

---

yes lately. Probably because his advisors have made him realize how much the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns have pissed the arab world off. The US relationship with the arabs are worse than ever, by talking about solving the middleeast conflict he might improve that relationship. I sincerely hope that he (and Blair) will stand by their word and that I will not involve another great military campaign.

quote:

---

That''s not what he said at all. He is saying that he has the kind of intelligence involved with being a leader. There is more than one kind of intelligence, and obviously, you lack at least one of them.

---

hmm perhaps you can tell me what kind of intelligent there is involved with being a great leader that good old monkey-boy has?. Please don''t pick at my intelligence just because you do not agree with. I don''t insult your person, I am only here to debate :-).

quote:

---

Yes, he was elected. Read the Constitution.

---

I am not an American, therefore I have not been spoonfed with the words of the US constitution in school. But I guess what you means is that it describes your election process (excuse my bad english) as fair and democratic. I do not doubt that but I remember something about trouble counting votes in Florida? and I never heard any conclusion about that case (an american: please enlighten me).

quote:

---

And are you implying that September 11 was Bush''s fault? If so, you have got to be kidding me. Bush had only been in office for less than a year. Do you honestly believe that he alone had pissed off the terrorists enough in that short a time for them to plot the biggest terror attack in history? Or is it more likely that a combination of decades of foreign policy caused it? Hmm, let''s think about that one...

---

Read my post again. I said that:
I realize that solely blaming this on Bush is stupid, but in these times it is important to have a strong AND intelligent leader.

I agree with you, it is decades of bad foreign policy.

finally..
I find it a bit strange that you show up and try to explain to me what Kevin ment?!? Are you close relatives since you can read his mind?. I think he is quite capable of speaking for himself. Your are welcome to post your own opinion and critize me, but don''t answer for somebody else. It is lame and looks like you''re sucking up to him (is this the right expression in english?!?).

quote:

---

But I guess what you means is that it describes your election process (excuse my bad english) as fair and democratic. I do not doubt that but I remember something about trouble counting votes in Florida? and I never heard any conclusion about that case (an american: please enlighten me).

---

Yes, when we point out the illigitimacy of Bush''s presidency, we are referring to the Supreme Court''s halting of the vote recount in Florida. Some pro-Bush people who are either very bad listeners or dishonest try to make it seem as though we are referring to the fact that Bush didn''t win the popular vote. It is possible to lose the popular vote and still gain the presidency, due to our system of the electoral college. But nobody''s saying his presidency is illigitimate because he lost the popular vote, he''s a fraud because the Supreme Court put a halt to a recounting of the votes in Florida, which was a very close state which would determine the outcome of the election.

Wrote one justice in regard to the recount - "does in my view threaten irreparable harm to the petitioner (Bush), and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." This is absolutely outrageous. Bush is president because he says so, and a recount which might say otherwise is unacceptable. These guys should be in jail.

They were aware that it was a bogus ruling (stopping the recount, that is), as evidenced by "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Our whole legal system is built on precedents, and here''s the Supreme Court admitting that this decision is so fucked up that it is inapplicable as a precedent in any future cases.

Sean

I think when this war (conflict, rather...) is over people will realize that Bush''s administration was right all along.

--We''ve already uncovered that the UN inspections were a failure. We''ll soon find out whether Saddam had WMDs after all.

--Even if you hate Bush''s guts, you have to admit that paying $1 for a gallon of gas again will feel good.

--If not for the US''s reformations after WWII, Japan would still be exporting rice and dried ox feces instead of Gamecube''s, cars, and televisions. In fact, Japan is now more advanced than the US (as far as the GNP shows). In a few decades Iraq will show similar improvements.

--Another million Iraqi civilians won''t have to die under an evil regime.

--Possibly more reasons, but I''m too tired to think.

Jon

Here''s what I know. I live in Midland TX home of pres Bush. We have a little sign and everything. This is Bush Country. The country radio stations band the Dixi Chicks because one of them voice an anti bush opinion. Still in the middle of Bush land, it all sounds like a bunch of crap. This war is currently being made to sound all noble. That we are doing it for Iraq''s people or some other reason of greatness. When this all started it was about anti-terrorisim. Which I fail to see how Iraq is realy in a position to truly pose much of a threat. Iraq wasn''t doing anything Iraq wasn''t doing before Bush needed a new target to show the American People he''s still fighting against terror. I don''t think the reasoning for all this comes from honor. This is happening for all the wrong reasons and I hope that America doesn''t suffer because of it. We ruffled alot of feathers over this and I think we are much less safe because of it.

Found this on the internet.

Iraqi immigrant discussing saddam with protestor:
http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

[edited by - MagTDK on March 22, 2003 1:06:31 AM]

This war has HUGE support, both here, and in Iraq, and from Iraqi immigrants. Bush has HUGE support as well.

If you don''t know that, then research it. LessBread and Mithrandir are a biased minority.

quote:

---

Original post by Sean99
...here''s the Supreme Court admitting that this decision is so fucked up that it is inapplicable as a precedent in any future cases....
Sean

---

One could say that the Supreme Court made that decision precisely because the situation was so screwed up. Imagine if they had allowed a recount. No election process is 100% airtight. So, they recount and get numbers, but each side also discovers one county that can''t find a ballot box or another county that had smudged ballots. So, they recount again and get new numbers, but one side says that smudged ballots are also a huge problem in another state, so really, those ballots should be recounted as well. You see where this is going. 500 recounts and 4 years later and it''s already time for another election. Given the realities of a less than perfect ballot system they would have had to cut it off at some point. If you cut it off early, it''s probably much better.

Let''s be very cynical and say that the Supreme Court tossed a coin. Given a very strong potential for something much worse, one could argue that a coin toss isn''t so bad. If we could magically go back and ask everybody who they *meant* to vote for, the result might be different than the best vote count (remember the whole misaligned ballot problem?). In a situation this close, the Supreme Court probably made a very good decision.

quote:

---

This war has HUGE support, both here, and in Iraq, and from Iraqi immigrants. Bush has HUGE support as well.

If you don''t know that, then research it. LessBread and Mithrandir are a biased minority.

---

Quantity over quality. Considering that much of the support in the US for this endeavor comes as a result of misinformation, yeah I''d say that Bush''s support means a whole hell of a lot. As for Iraq''s support of this, oversimplifying the situation to make it sound as if by wanting to get rid of Saddam, that translates to defacto support for US actions. I''m sure most of the Iraqi majority would disagree with the plans the US has for the administration of Iraq afterwards. I''m sure of this fact just like you are sure that the US has HUGE support in Iraq in the first place.

------------
- outRider -

Gee Outrider, thank you for explaining to me your beliefs and philosophies, although I can''t imagine how they''re relevant.