Quote Originally Posted by FlyGuyOU
i guess this all comes to the fact that sometimes people have to fight wars. do you wait for a climatic event like 9/11 or pearl harbor so that your people will rally behind the leaders? or do you take initiative and not wait for a spark.

near as i can tell, people are most upset with 'the way we went to war', false pretenses and whatnot. would they feel better if some republican guards blew up a commuter plane? lets face it nobody can think saddam was a good person. shit the guy would cut out peoples tongues, throw people into woodchippers, and carve X's on peoples foreheads. im glad he's gone.

i do wish things could have gone better, particularly in 2006 and 07. but we are there, and it tooks some big ass balls for the prez to make that decision. i respect him for that.
This is wrong on a lot of different levels.

When you say, "i guess this all comes to the fact that sometimes people have to fight wars," do you mean that people are just warlike and HAVE to fight wars? Or do you mean that there are sometimes good reasons to fight wars? I think there are sometimes good reasons to fight wars. The war in Afghanistan was fought for a good reason. But if there is a good reason, then the good reason should be enough --- the government should not have to lie about the reasons, or bait the other side into attacking us as you suggest they sometimes do. If you have to lie about the reasons, then obviously the real reason is not good enough.

Clearly, no one would, "feel better if some republican guards blew up a commuter plane." It's not about "feeling better" about it. It's about whether there are good reasons or not. If we had been attacked by Iraq, then there would have been good reasons. But they didn't attack us, so that reason is out. If they had been building the nukes, and nerve gas, and germs, then possibly that would have been a reason, but that turns out to be a lie. The fact that Saddam was a ruthless sadistic tyrant was not enough. If Bush had come to us and said, Saddam is a ruthless sadistic tyrant, and we have to get rid of him --- it''ll take a trillion dollars and cost 3000 American lives, and after 5 years we still won't really be sure how it will turn out, and it's going to turn Iraq into a terrorist haven for Al Qaeda, and it's going to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and create a couple million refugees, and alienate our allies, but believe me, it's gonna be worth it --- if he had done that in 2002, we could have had him locked up for insanity back then and avoided this whole mess.

I don't believe George Bush went after Saddam because he was a tyrant. And I don't think Bush just made an innocent mistake about the WMD either. The WMD were an excuse, and the tyrant thing is just a justification after the fact. He, or his "mentors' had reasons of their own that they have never admitted, and I'm pretty sure it had to do with money and/or oil, not the nation's best interests.

And about this, "it tooks some big ass balls for the prez to make that decision. i respect him for that," yes it took some big-ass balls to lie to the whole country and the world and get us into the biggest foreign-relations and humanitarian disaster we have ever caused, but I do not respect him for that. I despise him for that.
dragonrider Reviewed by dragonrider on . Bush: Bad president? Or WORST president EVER? I may have possibly revealed my own bias in the title of this thread, but YOU get to decide, and to be fair, there are options other than Bad and Worst. You can even select Best if you are crazy (don't let me influence your vote -- select Best if you really want to, you crazy nutjob). Whatever you vote for, please post a reason. If you think he is bad, why? If you think he is good, what are his accomplishments and who do you think has done a worse job? For example: I think George W. Bush Rating: 5