Is George W. Bush stupid, or just rigidly inflexible?

[GW in Ohio]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

I believe the answer lies in his status as a reformed alcoholic. People who have drinking problems and successfully turn to sobriety maintain their sobriety by a continued act of will. In order to maintain their sobriety they have to follow rigid patterns of behavior to keep themselves on the straight and narrow path.

I believe this accounts for Mr. Bush's behavior with regard to Iraq. Just as he must doggedly keep himself on the path to sobriety by maintaining a tunnel vision and blocking out thoughts and courses of action that might lead to drinking, so with Iraq....he must doggedly keep himself on the path he has set, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the will of the people, despite the opposition of our allies.....he must stay the course.

So is he stupid, or rigidly inflexible? He is rigidly inflexible. But either way, he is a disaster as president.

There should be a lesson here for the American voter: Never elect a president who is a reformed alcoholic.

[nevadamedic]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

I believe the answer lies in his status as a reformed alcoholic. People who have drinking problems and successfully turn to sobriety maintain their sobriety by a continued act of will. In order to maintain their sobriety they have to follow rigid patterns of behavior to keep themselves on the straight and narrow path.

I believe this accounts for Mr. Bush's behavior with regard to Iraq. Just as he must doggedly keep himself on the path to sobriety by maintaining a tunnel vision and blocking out thoughts and courses of action that might lead to drinking, so with Iraq....he must doggedly keep himself on the path he has set, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the will of the people, despite the opposition of our allies.....he must stay the course.

So is he stupid, or rigidly inflexible? He is rigidly inflexible. But either way, he is a disaster as president.

There should be a lesson here for the American voter: Never elect a president who is a reformed alcoholic.

You and I both know that is completly innacurate and uncalled for :lame2:

[GW in Ohio]

You and I both know that is completly innacurate and uncalled for :lame2:

nevadamedic: Please tell me exactly what is inaccurate or uncalled for.

[nevadamedic]

nevadamedic: Please tell me exactly what is inaccurate or uncalled for.

Your whole post.

[Joe Steel]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

Bush's incapacities are legion. Limiting them to only two, stupid or inflexible, is misleading. We should add dishonest, larcenous, arrogant and just plain evil, to name a few.

[manu1959]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

I believe the answer lies in his status as a reformed alcoholic. People who have drinking problems and successfully turn to sobriety maintain their sobriety by a continued act of will. In order to maintain their sobriety they have to follow rigid patterns of behavior to keep themselves on the straight and narrow path.

I believe this accounts for Mr. Bush's behavior with regard to Iraq. Just as he must doggedly keep himself on the path to sobriety by maintaining a tunnel vision and blocking out thoughts and courses of action that might lead to drinking, so with Iraq....he must doggedly keep himself on the path he has set, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the will of the people, despite the opposition of our allies.....he must stay the course.

So is he stupid, or rigidly inflexible? He is rigidly inflexible. But either way, he is a disaster as president.

There should be a lesson here for the American voter: Never elect a president who is a reformed alcoholic.

teddy still drinks and he exhibits the same behaviour.....so does nancy, the wannabe JFK, harry, the haircut....

[nevadamedic]

Bush's incapacities are legion. Limiting them to only two, stupid or inflexible, is misleading. We should add dishonest, larcenous, arrogant and just plain evil, to name a few.

Just once will you post something intelligent?

[manu1959]

Bush's incapacities are legion. Limiting them to only two, stupid or inflexible, is misleading. We should add dishonest, larcenous, arrogant and just plain evil, to name a few.

just following in the footsteps of his predecessor......

[LiberalNation]

Don't think he's the worst prez in history or really that unintelligent. Just not a great speaker or good at verbalizing his point of view. He is inflexible tho and would stand by a belief even if no one else agreed which I think is his downfall.

[nevadamedic]

just following in the footsteps of his predecessor......

If he was doing that he would be sticking it in everything that has a hole in Washington. :laugh2:

[Doniston]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

I believe the answer lies in his status as a reformed alcoholic. People who have drinking problems and successfully turn to sobriety maintain their sobriety by a continued act of will. In order to maintain their sobriety they have to follow rigid patterns of behavior to keep themselves on the straight and narrow path.

I believe this accounts for Mr. Bush's behavior with regard to Iraq. Just as he must doggedly keep himself on the path to sobriety by maintaining a tunnel vision and blocking out thoughts and courses of action that might lead to drinking, so with Iraq....he must doggedly keep himself on the path he has set, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the will of the people, despite the opposition of our allies.....he must stay the course.

So is he stupid, or rigidly inflexible? He is rigidly inflexible. But either way, he is a disaster as president.

There should be a lesson here for the American voter: Never elect a president who is a reformed alcoholic. He is a spoiled brat who has been able to get his own way all his life. Why should he change now if he can get away with it?

[Doniston]

You and I both know that is completly innacurate and uncalled for :lame2: It is not uncalled for. It is perfectly leguitimate, whether you agree or not. It is his opinion, as is mine and yours. so it is anything but lame.

[nevadamedic]

It is not uncalled for. It is perfectly leguitimate, whether you agree or not. It is his opinion, as is mine and yours. so it is anything but lame.

OPINION, NOT FACT. It sure as hell is not my opinion.

[manu1959]

It is not uncalled for. It is perfectly leguitimate, whether you agree or not. It is his opinion, as is mine and yours. so it is anything but lame.

isn't his opinion just as valid then?

[manu1959]

He is a spoiled brat who has been able to get his own way all his life. Why should he change now if he can get away with it?

teddy exhibits the same behaviour.....so does nancy, the wannabe JFK, harry, the haircut....

[Doniston]

teddy still drinks and he exhibits the same behaviour.....so does nancy, the wannabe JFK, harry, the haircut.... Even if you were right, which I certainly don't suggest. None of those have been elected president


isn't his opinion just as valid then? OF COURSE but still just opinion.

[Doniston]

Just once will you post something intelligent? It was, and is the opinion of many of us (with minor varuations).

[manu1959]

Even if you were right, which I certainly don't suggest. None of those have been elected president

politicians are inflexible by definition .... it is what they do .... they press an agenda ..... people that don't like their agenda call them stubborn, stuipd and inflexible .... which is unto itself; stubborn stupid and inflexible .... ironic isn't it ...

[manu1959]

It was, and is the opinion of many of us (with mimor varuations).

i hate .... mimor varuations .... they get in the way of my pefect world

[Doniston]

If he was doing that he would be sticking it in everything that has a hole in Washington. :laugh2: Not quite true. He can't reach his own head.:dance:

[Doniston]

OPINION, NOT FACT. It sure as hell is not my opinion. Mine is mime, your's is your's, and his is his. Of course "OPINION"

[GW in Ohio]

OPINION, NOT FACT. It sure as hell is not my opinion.

While 25% of the American people are content to follow George Bush's lead, wherever he may take us, 75% of the American people are searching for explanations for why Bush got us into Iraq in the first place, and why he persists in trying to force a military solution on a situation that just can't be resolved with US military force.

I myself have wondered why Bush behaves as he does. Taking his past problems with alcohol into account, and factoring in the typical behavior patterns of a reformed alcoholic, this thread is my explanation for why Bush behaves in such a doggedly boneheaded fashion. While my explanation is just specualtion on my part, it is as valid as anyone else's, and certainly it's at least as valid as the bullshit that emanates from the White House.

[theHawk]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

I believe the answer lies in his status as a reformed alcoholic. People who have drinking problems and successfully turn to sobriety maintain their sobriety by a continued act of will. In order to maintain their sobriety they have to follow rigid patterns of behavior to keep themselves on the straight and narrow path.

I believe this accounts for Mr. Bush's behavior with regard to Iraq. Just as he must doggedly keep himself on the path to sobriety by maintaining a tunnel vision and blocking out thoughts and courses of action that might lead to drinking, so with Iraq....he must doggedly keep himself on the path he has set, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the will of the people, despite the opposition of our allies.....he must stay the course.

So is he stupid, or rigidly inflexible? He is rigidly inflexible. But either way, he is a disaster as president.

There should be a lesson here for the American voter: Never elect a president who is a reformed alcoholic.


How exactly is the President supposed to be "flexible" on the war? What you want is for him to do a 180 and completely reverse course and abandon the mission. Anything less, and he is "inflexible." Sorry, but it isn't going to happen. Even the Dims in Congress know it will be a huge mistake to cut n' run because the terrorists will just overrun the entire country. They just put on their show n' dance to appease you far lefties by threatening to defund the war. In the end, they voted for the war just as much as any Republican. In the end, they know it would be political suicide to to fully pull out of Iraq and watch it truely implode and we'd all be watching it on CNN. The few that did vote against the funding (like Hitlery and Obama) waited until the last moment when they knew their vote wouldn't change it from passing just to please the nutjobs.

[GW in Ohio]

How exactly is the President supposed to be "flexible" on the war? What you want is for him to do a 180 and completely reverse course and abandon the mission. Anything less, and he is "inflexible." Sorry, but it isn't going to happen. Even the Dims in Congress know it will be a huge mistake to cut n' run because the terrorists will just overrun the entire country. They just put on their show n' dance to appease you far lefties by threatening to defund the war. In the end, they voted for the war just as much as any Republican. In the end, they know it would be political suicide to to fully pull out of Iraq and watch it truely implode and we'd all be watching it on CNN. The few that did vote against the funding (like Hitlery and Obama) waited until the last moment when they knew their vote wouldn't change it from passing just to please the nutjobs.

Hawk: If you're a military man, you know that sometimes the mission needs to be changed or scrapped.

To persist in a mission when it's obvious there's no hope of a good outcome is just plain stupid....or arrogant.

To persist in a mission when it's obvious there's no hope of a good outcome and your people are getting killed and maimed borders on the criminal.

[theHawk]

Hawk: If you're a military man, you know that sometimes the mission needs to be changed or scrapped.

To persist in a mission when it's obvious there's no hope of a good outcome is just plain stupid....or arrogant.

To persist in a mission when it's obvious there's no hope of a good outcome and your people are getting killed and maimed borders on the criminal.

I think things can be and should be run differently, but not an all out pull-out. Letting AQ swell up and gain power there would be much worse for our national security.

[GW in Ohio]

I think things can be and should be run differently, but not an all out pull-out. Letting AQ swell up and gain power there would be much worse for our national security.

Hawk: My view is that we can deal with al Qaeda and other Islamofascist groups most effectively by disengaging from the Middle East and focusing on securing own own borders and the interior of our country.

One of the main reasons why we're so hated in the Muslim world is that we're seen as jackbooted imperialists, meddling in Middle Eastern affairs of other nations. There is truth in that perception.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

How exactly is the President supposed to be "flexible" on the war? What you want is for him to do a 180 and completely reverse course and abandon the mission. Anything less, and he is "inflexible." Sorry, but it isn't going to happen. Even the Dims in Congress know it will be a huge mistake to cut n' run because the terrorists will just overrun the entire country. They just put on their show n' dance to appease you far lefties by threatening to defund the war. In the end, they voted for the war just as much as any Republican. In the end, they know it would be political suicide to to fully pull out of Iraq and watch it truely implode and we'd all be watching it on CNN. The few that did vote against the funding (like Hitlery and Obama) waited until the last moment when they knew their vote wouldn't change it from passing just to please the nutjobs.

Your republican hero Ronnie Raygun did exactly that in Lebanon after the barracks bombing. How many troops did we lose in the Lebanese War? None.

Those folks went thru a civil war and only when they got tired of killing each other did it stop. The same will happen in this civil war once we get out of the way. Sad and tragic but that is the nature of the middle east.

Bush is too stupid to get past his neocon outlook on the world to realize it or he doesn't want to realize it because then it means he cannot control the outcome.

[Lightning Waltz]

"Is George W. Bush stupid, or just rigidly inflexible?"

I'm going to assume that your or is a logical or (which can mean one, the other, or both) and say, "Yes, that is true".

[theHawk]

Your republican hero Ronnie Raygun did exactly that in Lebanon after the barracks bombing. How many troops did we lose in the Lebanese War? None.


So kill American troops and we'll withdraw. Sends out a great message.

Did the killings stop there? Nope. Our withdraw there, as well as many others afterwards only emboldened them to attack us more. So yes, no more troops died in the Lebanese War, but countless more died later on to Jihadists.

[Gaffer]

Hawk: My view is that we can deal with al Qaeda and other Islamofascist groups most effectively by disengaging from the Middle East and focusing on securing own own borders and the interior of our country.

One of the main reasons why we're so hated in the Muslim world is that we're seen as jackbooted imperialists, meddling in Middle Eastern affairs of other nations. There is truth in that perception.

Your idea of dealing with a problem is to run away from it. Hide in your house and hope it goes away. The best defense is still a good offense, it's always been that way.

The main reason we are hated in the muslim world is we are NOT muslims. That is the reason for the hatred. This country has never been jackboot imperialists except in the minds of ignorant people like you.

There are a lot of successes happening in iraq. It's not reported because that would make Bush look good and the media, like you, would hate that. The awtp reported one soldier killed today. They failed to report the 11 other events where 10 aq were killed and 40 other operatives captured and hundreds of weapons and IED's captured. But the awtp doesn't want to tell us about those and you don't want to hear about them, because that would signal there is success in the operations. In iraq there are real men and women fighting the islamists. Here we have chicken shit run and hide pussies like you. The bravest thing you have ever done is post silly comments here.

[-Cp]

[QUOTE=GW in Ohio;74079]While 25% of the American people are content to follow George Bush's lead, wherever he may take us, 75% of the American people are searching for explanations for why Bush got us into Iraq in the first place, and why he persists in trying to force a military solution on a situation that just can't be resolved with US military force.QUOTE]

:link::link::link::link:

[GW in Ohio]

Your idea of dealing with a problem is to run away from it. Hide in your house and hope it goes away. The best defense is still a good offense, it's always been that way.

The main reason we are hated in the muslim world is we are NOT muslims. That is the reason for the hatred. This country has never been jackboot imperialists except in the minds of ignorant people like you.

There are a lot of successes happening in iraq. It's not reported because that would make Bush look good and the media, like you, would hate that. The awtp reported one soldier killed today. They failed to report the 11 other events where 10 aq were killed and 40 other operatives captured and hundreds of weapons and IED's captured. But the awtp doesn't want to tell us about those and you don't want to hear about them, because that would signal there is success in the operations. In iraq there are real men and women fighting the islamists. Here we have chicken shit run and hide pussies like you. The bravest thing you have ever done is post silly comments here.

You equate stupidity with bravery.

And you equate knowing when to pick a fight and when to refrain from picking a fight with cowardice.

Big mistake on both counts.

[GW in Ohio]

[QUOTE=GW in Ohio;74079]While 25% of the American people are content to follow George Bush's lead, wherever he may take us, 75% of the American people are searching for explanations for why Bush got us into Iraq in the first place, and why he persists in trying to force a military solution on a situation that just can't be resolved with US military force.QUOTE]

:link::link::link::link:

What is this link shit? Don't be so fucking lazy. Write words instead of clicking on a smilie icon.

Go to any newspaper and look up how Americans feel about this war.

[nevadamedic]

[QUOTE=-Cp;74115]

What is this link shit? Don't be so fucking lazy. Write words instead of clicking on a smilie icon.

Go to any newspaper and look up how Americans feel about this war.

Newspapers arn't accurate, they only poll and interview their Liberal comrads.

[avatar4321]

Let's face it, Mr. Bush's behavior regarding the Iraq debacle has established him as the worst president in American history. But what is the reason for his inability to admit mistakes and to change course? Is he unbelievably stupid? Or is there some other reason for his inflexibility?

I believe the answer lies in his status as a reformed alcoholic. People who have drinking problems and successfully turn to sobriety maintain their sobriety by a continued act of will. In order to maintain their sobriety they have to follow rigid patterns of behavior to keep themselves on the straight and narrow path.

I believe this accounts for Mr. Bush's behavior with regard to Iraq. Just as he must doggedly keep himself on the path to sobriety by maintaining a tunnel vision and blocking out thoughts and courses of action that might lead to drinking, so with Iraq....he must doggedly keep himself on the path he has set, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite the will of the people, despite the opposition of our allies.....he must stay the course.

So is he stupid, or rigidly inflexible? He is rigidly inflexible. But either way, he is a disaster as president.

There should be a lesson here for the American voter: Never elect a president who is a reformed alcoholic.

Thank you for demonstrating the fallacy of the false dichotomy. All people should learn to spot this argument flaw.

What about recovering drug users?

[Gaffer]

You equate stupidity with bravery.

And you equate knowing when to pick a fight and when to refrain from picking a fight with cowardice.

Big mistake on both counts.

Bravery is taking the action that needs to be taken inspite of consequences and physical danger. Stupidity is hiding and hoping it will all go away and not taking any action.

You don't pick a fight. You take action to prevent the other one from picking a fight with you. You fight on your terms and not his.

[avatar4321]

While 25% of the American people are content to follow George Bush's lead, wherever he may take us, 75% of the American people are searching for explanations for why Bush got us into Iraq in the first place, and why he persists in trying to force a military solution on a situation that just can't be resolved with US military force.

I myself have wondered why Bush behaves as he does. Taking his past problems with alcohol into account, and factoring in the typical behavior patterns of a reformed alcoholic, this thread is my explanation for why Bush behaves in such a doggedly boneheaded fashion. While my explanation is just specualtion on my part, it is as valid as anyone else's, and certainly it's at least as valid as the bullshit that emanates from the White House.

Seriously, I try to give you guys the benefit of the doubt but how on earth do you expect to be taken seriously when you make bullcrap statements that most Americans have no clue why we went into Iraq. It isn't that difficult to understand why we went into Iraq. We have numbers of reasons for it. You have to be a complete and utter moron or have your head in the sand if you dont understand why we went to Iraq.

How many times do we have to list the reasons before you understand it? Seriously just learn to read.

[Lightning Waltz]

How many times do we have to list the reasons before you understand it? Seriously just learn to read.

No one doubts that you neo-cons have your talking points down pat...what we question is the validity of your arguments.

[nevadamedic]

No one doubts that you neo-cons have your talking points down pat...what we question is the validity of your arguments.

Then question him about it, your just afraid he will school you in real life on here for everyone to see.

[Lightning Waltz]

Then question him about it, your just afraid he will school you in real life on here for everyone to see.

:lol:
Pot meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

[Nukeman]

Bush's incapacities are legion. Limiting them to only two, stupid or inflexible, is misleading. We should add dishonest, larcenous, arrogant and just plain evil, to name a few.You could put just about any politicians name in front of this post and be pretty accurate. Keep in mind Bush did get better grades than John Kerry the last great hope for the democratic party....

[Nukeman]

[QUOTE=-Cp;74115]

What is this link shit? Don't be so fucking lazy. Write words instead of clicking on a smilie icon.

Go to any newspaper and look up how Americans feel about this war.

You made the statement you need to back it up with proof. That is all they are asking for. So heed your own advice and "dont be so fucking lazy" and post your link. There I spelled it out for you!!!!

[Gaffer]

No one doubts that you neo-cons have your talking points down pat...what we question is the validity of your arguments.

I don't use talking points, I state facts based on what I read and research on the web. I do not use MSM sites as they are all bias. That includes the ap, rueters and the other wire services.

In gw's case he just has knee jerk reactions to whatever was on cnn last night and he hates Bush with a passion. He's a liberal talking points echo machine with nothing even remotely sensible to discuss on here.

Bush aside, we are at war with islam. A portion of islam is actively involved in this war. The rest are sitting back, and while not participating, are tacitly supporting it. The more victories the participating muslims have the more recruits they will get. If they get a country like iraq to operate from they have resources and infrastructure to work with for attacking the US directly. Running away from iraq will just embolden them and allow them a base of operations. Not to mention we are going to need iraq as a staging area against iran eventually. Nothing is going to be settled in iraq until iran is taken down.

[Lightning Waltz]

Why Iraq and Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

[Guernicaa]

Firstly before I comment, I'd just like to say to everyone on here that its pretty useless to try and "debate" with Nevadamedic, so most of us should just put him on ignore.

There was nothing "false" in the first post, and even when nevadamedic was asked to explain "whats wrong?" he refused too and just said "everything".

That is "I'm a fu_k_ng dumba$$ and I cannot debate" at its best.

[OCA]

If Bush is so stupid why did he get elected twice? What does that say about the mental capacities of two ignoramuses with last names of Gore and Kerry?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

When its all said and done historians will look upon Bush as a hero.

[Guernicaa]

Your idea of dealing with a problem is to run away from it. Hide in your house and hope it goes away. The best defense is still a good offense, it's always been that way.

The main reason we are hated in the muslim world is we are NOT muslims. That is the reason for the hatred. This country has never been jackboot imperialists except in the minds of ignorant people like you.

Actually, thats completely false.

Muslims don't hate us because were "not Muslim".
I have no idea where the fuck you came up with that...
You probably read it on worldnetdaily or some Coulter column...

The reason they hate us is because of the influence that American oil companies play in the Middle East. We suck Middle Eastern countries dry of their resources, so we can live happily and fruitfully here in America.
Do you think the countries we take oil from are benefiting at all? Other than the few billionaires that help control the oil business?

Check the reasons as to why Al-Qaeda planned 9/11.
Bin Laden listed them all out in a video before they attacked us.

"Because they're not Muslim" was not on their list....
The dominating presence of American oil companies was.

The only country that truly benefits from their natural resources is Saudi Arabia...and that’s because they keep half of what they take out.


And yes, we have been imperialists, and we are imperialists today.
We are controlling a country for the benefit of exporting its natural resources. That is imperialism in its purest form.

[Guernicaa]

If Bush is so stupid why did he get elected twice? What does that say about the mental capacities of two ignoramuses with last names of Gore and Kerry?:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

When its all said and done historians will look upon Bush as a hero.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/ddmr.htm

[Lightning Waltz]

When its all said and done historians will look upon Bush as a hero.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[Gaffer]

Why Iraq and Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

iran is the main support of ALL the terror organizations. They are working hard on getting nuclear weapons and they intend to start an apocalyptic war even if their own country is destroyed in the process.

The saud's are more devious about their goals and not being militarily threatening. It's a country being run by greedy royals that won't give up their power by appearing threatening to others.

egypt has its own internal problems and not a threat to the world at this time.

iraq was saddam. Now its just a gathering point for islamist who want to control the country.

[GW in Ohio]

I don't use talking points, I state facts based on what I read and research on the web. I do not use MSM sites as they are all bias. That includes the ap, rueters and the other wire services.

In gw's case he just has knee jerk reactions to whatever was on cnn last night and he hates Bush with a passion. He's a liberal talking points echo machine with nothing even remotely sensible to discuss on here.

Bush aside, we are at war with islam. A portion of islam is actively involved in this war. The rest are sitting back, and while not participating, are tacitly supporting it. The more victories the participating muslims have the more recruits they will get. If they get a country like iraq to operate from they have resources and infrastructure to work with for attacking the US directly. Running away from iraq will just embolden them and allow them a base of operations. Not to mention we are going to need iraq as a staging area against iran eventually. Nothing is going to be settled in iraq until iran is taken down.

The arrogance contained in this post is the reason much of the world, and not just the Muslim world, hates us.

"We're going to need Iraq as a staging area in the next war against Iran"?

Do you at all see the arrogance there? Using other countries as "staging areas" for your little neocon wars? What gives you the right to use other countries as "staging areas, " with or without their permission?

Oh, wait......I forgot.......we invaded Iraq, so it belongs to us.

Silly me.....

[Lightning Waltz]

Gaffer, I'm confused. I thought we were at war with a religion, not particular nation-states. So, I ask again, "Why Iraq and Iran? Why not Saudi Arabia and Egypt?"

Or, are you planning on eventually fighting those countries as well and just prioritizing at the moment?

[OCA]

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dd/ddmr.htm


Typical, no argument. You should be euthanized, your parents are completely ashamed of you for sure.:laugh2:

[OCA]

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Come see me in 20 years. Trust me, i'm right and you know it.

[avatar4321]

No one doubts that you neo-cons have your talking points down pat...what we question is the validity of your arguments.

You can question the validity of the arguments all you want. But you are just being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming as though no one understands why or there were no reasons. You might not like the reasons. But there were very clear and articulated reasons that arent difficult to understand. Hence you have to be stupid or put your head in the sand to claim that there were no reasons.

[GW in Ohio]

Right-wingers, Bush apologists and other tinfoil hat enthusiasts:

Chew on this for awhile......

Seven in Ten Americans Favor Congressional Candidates Who Will Pursue a Major Change in Foreign Policy
U.S. Public Wants Less Emphasis on Military Force, More on Working Through U.N.

A Majority Supports Direct Talks with North Korea and Iran

Full Report
Questionnaire/Methodology

Going into the November midterm elections, seven in ten Americans say they prefer Congressional candidates who will pursue a new approach to U.S. foreign policy. A new nationwide survey finds a large and growing majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world. Most Americans believe that U.S. policies are increasing the threat of terrorist attack and decreasing goodwill toward the United States.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)/Knowledge Networks poll also finds that large majorities of Americans feel that the United States puts too much emphasis on military force and unilateral action. Most say they want their member of Congress to work to shift the emphasis of U.S. foreign policy in favor of diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and homeland security.

They also stress the need for programs to reduce the United States’ dependence on oil. When given the opportunity to reshape the foreign policy budget, respondents redistribute spending from military programs to other methods of pursuing security.

“It is a rare year that foreign policy takes center stage in Congressional elections. Voters are calling for a sea change in U.S. foreign policy. They want less emphasis on military force, and more on soft power,” said Steven Kull, director of PIPA and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

On the question of how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, a majority of respondents disagrees with the Bush administration’s refusal to seek direct talks. Fifty-five percent say the United States should enter into talks without preconditions.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, which surveyed 1,058 people from Oct. 6-15. It finds a sharp increase in the proportion of Americans who express concern about their country’s standing in the world. Two out of three Americans (68%) say they are “dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world today,” up 17 points from a February Gallup poll. The Bush administration’s handling of foreign affairs gets poor marks with majorities saying that it has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States (60%) and has decreased goodwill (78%).

Many see the United States’ current foreign policy as out of balance. Sixty-five percent say that the Bush administration is “too quick to get military forces involved” and 67 percent say that it should “put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods.” Large majorities favor putting greater emphasis on non-military forms of pursuing security such as working to reduce U.S. dependence on oil (84%), coordinating intelligence and law enforcement efforts with other countries (83%), working through the United Nations to strengthen international anti-terrorism law and enforcement (71%), and building goodwill toward the United States by providing food and medical assistance to people in poor countries (57%).

Far less popular are approaches such as building new nuclear weapons (25%) or helping dissidents try to overthrow the government of Iran (28%).

Americans show a strong preference for Congressional candidates who would seek to increase multilateral cooperation. Seventy-two percent say they would prefer candidates who believe that “the U.S. should do its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries.” Much less popular are candidates who want the United States to “continue to be the preeminent world leader” (9% support) or to “withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems” (16%).

Using an innovative survey technique, respondents were allowed to redistribute spending within the existing foreign policy budget. The poll shows that Americans would make sharp changes.

• On average they favor cutting spending on military items by $198 billion, or 36 percent, from 2006 levels, and reducing spending for military operations in Iraq by $18 billion.

• Americans favor increasing spending on preparation for disasters by an average of $40 billion. They also support more funding for energy conservation and renewables ($39 billion), humanitarian and disaster assistance ($19 billion), initiatives to control the global spread of HIV/AIDS ($25 billion), helping poor countries develop their economies ($17 billion),and programs to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by helping countries secure nuclear materials ($16 billion).

Americans of both parties are critical of partisanship in the U.S. Congress, according to the survey. Majorities want a Congress that seeks common ground and does more to oversee foreign policy.

• A large majority (90%) rejects the view that the best way to arrive at foreign policy is for each party to fight for what they think is best, favoring instead Democrats and Republicans trying to find common ground.

• Seven in ten (71%) prefer that the views of the American people as a whole influence U.S. foreign policy more than the views of the majority of their own party.

• Republicans (52%), Democrats (85%) and Independents (76%) all disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job

• Majorities also say that “the way the Bush Administration has been conducting foreign policy” has decreased good will toward the U.S.: This sentiment is shared by Republicans (64%), Democrats (89%) and Independents (76%).

• Fifty-three percent overall feel that Congress is not doing enough to oversee U.S foreign policy, while 21 percent say it is doing too much, and 17 percent say it is doing the right amount of oversight.

• Two-thirds (65%) say that the U.S. government plays on people’s fears too much when it justifies its foreign policies to the American people.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, using its nationwide panels, which are randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

October 19, 2006

[GW in Ohio]

What a bunch of pussies, huh?

[Lightning Waltz]

Come see me in 20 years. Trust me, i'm right and you know it.

I think Bush will be named one of the worst presidents of our, or any other time in the United States. And I think history will also bear that out.

[Lightning Waltz]

You can question the validity of the arguments all you want. But you are just being intellectually dishonest if you are claiming as though no one understands why or there were no reasons. You might not like the reasons. But there were very clear and articulated reasons that arent difficult to understand. Hence you have to be stupid or put your head in the sand to claim that there were no reasons.

No reason? Oh, sure...there were reasons. Bad reasons, invalid reasons, self-interested reasons...but no good reasons.

[Gaffer]

Actually, thats completely false.

Muslims don't hate us because were "not Muslim".
I have no idea where the fuck you came up with that...
You probably read it on worldnetdaily or some Coulter column...

The reason they hate us is because of the influence that American oil companies play in the Middle East. We suck Middle Eastern countries dry of their resources, so we can live happily and fruitfully here in America.
Do you think the countries we take oil from are benefiting at all? Other than the few billionaires that help control the oil business?

Check the reasons as to why Al-Qaeda planned 9/11.
Bin Laden listed them all out in a video before they attacked us.

"Because they're not Muslim" was not on their list....
The dominating presence of American oil companies was.

The only country that truly benefits from their natural resources is Saudi Arabia...and that’s because they keep half of what they take out.


And yes, we have been imperialists, and we are imperialists today.
We are controlling a country for the benefit of exporting its natural resources. That is imperialism in its purest form.

aahhhhh back to the old "it's all about oil" routine. We BUY the oil from the middle east, along with lots of other countries. Each oil producing country controls it's oil. iraq is presently selling most of its oil to china, vietnam and germany. It is important that we keep the oil lanes protected, not just for us but for the rest of the world. Without oil you would not only be NOT driving your car, you would not even be able to get on line as most power companies use oil. Not to mention all the products made from oil. It's the life blood of civilization. Without it watch how quickly everything falls apart.

If America was an imperialist nation there would have been no elections in iraq. We would have just established a governor there and cracked down hard on all the insurgents regardless of casualties. we would have taken down iran long ago and the saudi's would be under our complete control as well.

Imperialism is thrown out there the same way the Bush is hitler shit is thrown around. America is only imperialistic to the feeble minded left wing nut jobs who hate America no matter what.

bin laden and iran hate America because we do not follow shira law and we support Isreal. bin laden even issued a warning that there would be many more attacks if we didn't submit to islam. The war is with islam and only involves oil in the sense it is necessary for our civilization. And keeping it out of the hands of those who would use it to fund their war on us.

[OCA]

Right-wingers, Bush apologists and other tinfoil hat enthusiasts:

Chew on this for awhile......

Seven in Ten Americans Favor Congressional Candidates Who Will Pursue a Major Change in Foreign Policy
U.S. Public Wants Less Emphasis on Military Force, More on Working Through U.N.

A Majority Supports Direct Talks with North Korea and Iran

Full Report
Questionnaire/Methodology

Going into the November midterm elections, seven in ten Americans say they prefer Congressional candidates who will pursue a new approach to U.S. foreign policy. A new nationwide survey finds a large and growing majority of Americans is dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world. Most Americans believe that U.S. policies are increasing the threat of terrorist attack and decreasing goodwill toward the United States.

The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA)/Knowledge Networks poll also finds that large majorities of Americans feel that the United States puts too much emphasis on military force and unilateral action. Most say they want their member of Congress to work to shift the emphasis of U.S. foreign policy in favor of diplomacy, multilateral cooperation, and homeland security.

They also stress the need for programs to reduce the United States’ dependence on oil. When given the opportunity to reshape the foreign policy budget, respondents redistribute spending from military programs to other methods of pursuing security.

“It is a rare year that foreign policy takes center stage in Congressional elections. Voters are calling for a sea change in U.S. foreign policy. They want less emphasis on military force, and more on soft power,” said Steven Kull, director of PIPA and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

On the question of how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, a majority of respondents disagrees with the Bush administration’s refusal to seek direct talks. Fifty-five percent say the United States should enter into talks without preconditions.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, which surveyed 1,058 people from Oct. 6-15. It finds a sharp increase in the proportion of Americans who express concern about their country’s standing in the world. Two out of three Americans (68%) say they are “dissatisfied with the position of the United States in the world today,” up 17 points from a February Gallup poll. The Bush administration’s handling of foreign affairs gets poor marks with majorities saying that it has increased the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the United States (60%) and has decreased goodwill (78%).

Many see the United States’ current foreign policy as out of balance. Sixty-five percent say that the Bush administration is “too quick to get military forces involved” and 67 percent say that it should “put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic methods.” Large majorities favor putting greater emphasis on non-military forms of pursuing security such as working to reduce U.S. dependence on oil (84%), coordinating intelligence and law enforcement efforts with other countries (83%), working through the United Nations to strengthen international anti-terrorism law and enforcement (71%), and building goodwill toward the United States by providing food and medical assistance to people in poor countries (57%).

Far less popular are approaches such as building new nuclear weapons (25%) or helping dissidents try to overthrow the government of Iran (28%).

Americans show a strong preference for Congressional candidates who would seek to increase multilateral cooperation. Seventy-two percent say they would prefer candidates who believe that “the U.S. should do its share in efforts to solve international problems together with other countries.” Much less popular are candidates who want the United States to “continue to be the preeminent world leader” (9% support) or to “withdraw from most efforts to solve international problems” (16%).

Using an innovative survey technique, respondents were allowed to redistribute spending within the existing foreign policy budget. The poll shows that Americans would make sharp changes.

• On average they favor cutting spending on military items by $198 billion, or 36 percent, from 2006 levels, and reducing spending for military operations in Iraq by $18 billion.

• Americans favor increasing spending on preparation for disasters by an average of $40 billion. They also support more funding for energy conservation and renewables ($39 billion), humanitarian and disaster assistance ($19 billion), initiatives to control the global spread of HIV/AIDS ($25 billion), helping poor countries develop their economies ($17 billion),and programs to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by helping countries secure nuclear materials ($16 billion).

Americans of both parties are critical of partisanship in the U.S. Congress, according to the survey. Majorities want a Congress that seeks common ground and does more to oversee foreign policy.

• A large majority (90%) rejects the view that the best way to arrive at foreign policy is for each party to fight for what they think is best, favoring instead Democrats and Republicans trying to find common ground.

• Seven in ten (71%) prefer that the views of the American people as a whole influence U.S. foreign policy more than the views of the majority of their own party.

• Republicans (52%), Democrats (85%) and Independents (76%) all disapprove of the way Congress is doing its job

• Majorities also say that “the way the Bush Administration has been conducting foreign policy” has decreased good will toward the U.S.: This sentiment is shared by Republicans (64%), Democrats (89%) and Independents (76%).

• Fifty-three percent overall feel that Congress is not doing enough to oversee U.S foreign policy, while 21 percent say it is doing too much, and 17 percent say it is doing the right amount of oversight.

• Two-thirds (65%) say that the U.S. government plays on people’s fears too much when it justifies its foreign policies to the American people.

The poll was fielded by Knowledge Networks, using its nationwide panels, which are randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.

October 19, 2006

I have always said that America was about 20% intelligent folks and 80% sheep.

[avatar4321]

No reason? Oh, sure...there were reasons. Bad reasons, invalid reasons, self-interested reasons...but no good reasons.

That's a matter of opinion. But thank you for conceding the point. There were reasons and they werent tough to understand. saying there are none is intellectually dishonest. which is exactly my point.

[Lightning Waltz]

That's a matter of opinion. But thank you for conceding the point. There were reasons and they werent tough to understand. saying there are none is intellectually dishonest. which is exactly my point.

Sorry, I don't see much difference between bullshit reasons, and no reason at all...especially when weighing something as heavy as going to war and overthrowing a government. I think you're really splitting hairs.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Esslingen
Your republican hero Ronnie Raygun did exactly that in Lebanon after the barracks bombing. How many troops did we lose in the Lebanese War? None.


So kill American troops and we'll withdraw. Sends out a great message.

Did the killings stop there? Nope. Our withdraw there, as well as many others afterwards only emboldened them to attack us more. So yes, no more troops died in the Lebanese War, but countless more died later on to Jihadists.

Well, the message was we are not going to fight for peace while the country intends to wage a civil war. The militants were going to keep killing each other regardless of what we did. We were just a target for them to hit. Reagan had the smarts to cut his losses and pack up. Bush hasn't figured it out yet. Thus, the question that started this thread.

[nevadamedic]

Originally Posted by Baron Von Esslingen
Your republican hero Ronnie Raygun did exactly that in Lebanon after the barracks bombing. How many troops did we lose in the Lebanese War? None.



Well, the message was we are not going to fight for peace while the country intends to wage a civil war. The militants were going to keep killing each other regardless of what we did. We were just a target for them to hit. Reagan had the smarts to cut his losses and pack up. Bush hasn't figured it out yet. Thus, the question that started this thread.

No, Reagan had the smarts to fix the mess Carter got us in.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Your lack of historical knowledge is astounding.

The Lebanese began their civil war in 1975 - BEFORE CARTER WAS PRESIDENT.

Reagan volunteered forces for peacekeeping in 1983 - AFTER CARTER WAS PRESIDENT.

Stop inhaling the gas fumes when you fill up your car. They are making you say stupid things.