Democrats & Liberals Archives

More or Less: The cavalier attitude of the Bush administration toward death

“I would say 30,000, more or less, have died…” George Bush replied when asked about the number of Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the American invasion of Iraq.

More or less? More or less is an interesting phrase to use when you’re comparing lives lost. I mean it’s not like you’re counting marbles here. They’re lives. But, I guess from an actuarial perspective, the reported 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths is an acceptable number to Mr. Bush. For that number translates to a paltry 0.115% of the total population (link) of Iraq. So, I guess it’s not that bad.

Oh wait... Bush's number only reflects the civilians killed. You know, those poor saps that happen to have been caught in the cross-fire of their liberation. The women and children and others trying to go about their daily lives. Those are the civilians that Mr. Bush is talking about. One could equate those Iraqi civilians to the people in the Pentagon and in the World Trade Center on 9.11. For those people also, were people just trying to go about their daily lives. And those 3,000 people or 0.001% of the American population, were killed doing just that; going about their daily lives. So it's not that bad.

But what about the other Iraqis killed in Iraq: the Iraqi military people?

If you put in the 30,000 Iraqi troops killed during the same time, the number becomes 60,000 Iraqis killed. Now the total number of Iraqis killed comes to 0.23% of the entire Iraqi population. Still, I guess from Mr. Bush's perspective; that's not so bad.

What would that look like if that were in America? 0.23% of the American population translates to about 680,188 Americans. How would everyone feel if America lost 680,188 Americans due to a war? Could that explain the reason why most Iraqis do not support the American invasion of Iraq? If not, it probably has something to do with it.

What about the seriously injured? Don't they count? I would assume that they would count for something. For in many cases, these seriously injured people, both military and civilian, impact Iraqi life in more ways than one can imagine. These injuries create tremendous hardships for the families of the injured and create a significant impact on the local economy in dealing with the costs associated with the injury. In many cases, the injured sustain a life controlled only by medical treatment. According to online tracking sites (link) 139,000 Iraqi military and civilians are listed as seriously injured equaling 0.534% of the total population of Iraq.

What would that look like in America? 0.534% becomes 1,579,220 seriously injured if America was invaded and liberated by another country.

I realize that this doesn't translate directly, but a little empathy goes a long way. Proud Americans should rise and complain loudly to its leaders when they use insensitive phrases like "more or less" relating to human life and tragic suffering.

Instead of complaining about the ungratefulness of the Iraqi people and about how the Iraqi people should be welcoming the US with open arms and parades in the streets. The hawks of this administration should look within their moral beings for the total impact and cost of this unjust war. This administration should reflect upon their judgments and decisions and respect the dissent as a direct cost of this war. And if the cost of the war means losing an election or two, so be it; that's the price of admission, more or less.

Posted by john trevisani at December 13, 2005 9:29 AM
Comments
Comment #101876

I’m no Bush defender but maybe this is why he never takes questions.

It was loaded and there is almost no answer one could come up with that wouldn’t cause some disdain. If he didn’t know a number to give, that would have been the worst. I was surprised at how well he was prepared for it. His handlers guessed right.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 13, 2005 9:42 AM
Comment #101879

John,

It would not matter what he would have said, you would have slammed him for it…

If his number was wrong…
He would be uninformed.
If he cried…
He would not be a strong leader.
If he struggled with the answer…
He would be hiding something.

There is no way he could have answered this. Some liberal would have attacked him on it no matter what…

Posted by: Cliff at December 13, 2005 9:52 AM
Comment #101883

John: agreed, the “more or less” is appalling. It goes against the grain. Your argument is very good.

Schwamp: It isn’t the answer, it is how Bush answered that John is arguing. The narcissism comes through in the “more or less”. By tomorrow Bushes writers will put another spin on it, Bush will take it on the campaign trail to the right-wingers and be sincere and personable and win them over; but the fact is his first reaction shows the true person. That is why he never takes questions.

Posted by: Kathleen at December 13, 2005 10:01 AM
Comment #101885

Cliff:
This isn’t about me or any other dissenter; it’s about how this administration behaves towards its people.

There’s an easy way to answer these questions: truthfully.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 10:03 AM
Comment #101897

“But what about the other Iraqis killed in Iraq: the Iraqi military people?”

Iraq War.
Iraqi military people vs. US military people.
That made the Iraqi military people the enemy.
30,000 of them dead, a few hundred of ours dead. If we are involved in a war, I personally would rather see the numbers like that.

War is hell and 30,000 civilians dead is a terrible thing but until there is someway to protect civilians during war, this number will always be high.
What ever happened to the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi civilians the left has been telling everyone?

30,000 Iraqi soldiers dead?
Good!

Posted by: kctim at December 13, 2005 10:32 AM
Comment #101901
What ever happened to the hundreds of thousands dead Iraqi civilians the left has been telling everyone?

Some groups have estimated up to 100,000. And I would bet there is more analysis put into their estimates than Bush put into his.

You act like now that W has spoken we know the real answer. Some people never learn.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 13, 2005 10:49 AM
Comment #101905

Cliff, your a blind supporter. You think that anyone who has something critical to say of bush is “some liberal” who is only interested in attacking for attacking’s sake. Open your eyes man. Read the original post. That is heartfelt, john holds a high regard for any human life, as should you. if these are the people we are “liberating”, perhaps we should take extra care in whether or not they survive this conflict as unscathed as possible— its the human thing to do.

so cliff, have you no criticism of bush for his statement? have you any criticism’s of the man at all?

The people of the states have to get it through their head that ITS YOUR OBLIGATION TO CRITICIZE OUR LEADERS. If you don’t, you get boneheads like this in office. If you can’t think of at least ten republicans that would be better suited for the presidency then you shouldn’t vote.

Bush as a president should be asked the tough questions. He should have to answer them. We should see him squirm like a slug in the sun.

60,000 dead (i think thats a conservative number)
100,000+ injured (for some the loss of your legs, sight, and hands equals death)

My heart breaks even further when i realize there is no good reason for us to be there. Saddam may have been Hitler in his heart, but was no where near the threat.

http://www.mondodisotto.it/imageiraq.htm

Posted by: tree hugger at December 13, 2005 10:53 AM
Comment #101908

John,

I am sure you realize that no number would be even close to accurate. You are also correct that he was very cavalier with his response. I am not at all sure why you made the percentage calculations comparisons because they are quite misleading and prove nothing. Obviously the larger total population of an attacking country the more distorted the percentages would be. If you used China in your comparison, the percentage would me miniscule.

Posted by: steve smith at December 13, 2005 10:56 AM
Comment #101913

John,

Truthfully? More or less is truthfully. Perhaps it is not as eloquent as “an unofficial estimation stands at 30,000” but still no one has ever credited Bush with being an articulate speaker. However, the “more or less” probably came from feild briefings. It is an unfair question. There is no possible way to cataloge the totaly civilian casualities. If it is truth you wanted, it is what you got. Bush was truthfully answering that about 30,000 civilians have died. I ask you this, you mentioned that 30,000 Iraqi soldiers had died in the war. Is that an exact figure, or is it “more or less”

I was at a confrence the other night with two doctors. Dr. Samih El Abed, the deputy minister of Planning of Palestine, was critical of Isreal’s presence in the sense that he said, “You can’t take my land, my food, my home, and make me live in poverty and ask me to be happy about it and be all smiles.” He did however make clear that the situation in Iraq, and Palestine were getting better with the presence of Bush. He even commented that the Camp David discussions were a failure because of President Clinton’s unpreparadness. I won’t go further into this discussion because it is not the matter of discussion. I simply found it interesting, in conjunction with my next point, that maybe the “enraged” Iraqis that you speak of are not so enraged.
Following Dr. El Abed was a colleague of his, Dr. Avi Primor of Isreal. A large part of his contention was that the Isreali people, and most Middle Eastern people are concerned most heavily with security. His comment was that if you tell an Isreali that putting up a wall will protect them, they will put up a wall. If you tell them Palestian communication will protect them they will open the borders. Whatever the truth is it is. But ultimately, the Iraqi population realizes that security on a much greater scale comes from working with the US government and that is why a true blue Civil War has not broken out and the Sunnis are no longer boycotting the elections.
Furthermore, I was in an in depth conversation with a Kurd and a Shi’ite expatriot and both voiced great enthusiasm for the upcoming election and for democracy within Iraq. Their point was that yes, 30,000 fellow citizens were slain BUT it did not outweigh in their minds the oppurtunity to have their families have consistent water and electricity, basic freedoms and democracy…if not somewhat tweaked to fit the Middle Eastern standards.
In conclusion, I don’t see the irrateness of the Iraqi people that you see John. I’m not saying this by reading it in the newspapers. I am only relating what I hear from experts and eye-witnesses to Saddam’s horrors. Back to the original point, Bush is not an articulate man. Perhaps “more or less” was a charged phrase for the overly sensitive. Well it was a charged question to begin with.

Posted by: The BDB at December 13, 2005 11:06 AM
Comment #101914

steve smith:
i think you can understand the point that i’m trying to make. It’s empathy.

The human cost of this war is much larger than off-handed remarks by this nation’s leader. The first step in recovery is recognition. Once this nation’s leader recognizes his mistakes and makes a genuine effort at remorse can recovery begin.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 11:07 AM
Comment #101916

It is interesting to hear all the comments about war and death with comments about the President’s sincerity. Can anyone tell me of a war that didn’t involve civilian deaths and injuries? Would some be more pleased if the President had an exact number? And, what would that prove? Would any of you care to speculate on how many civilians would have died if Saddam had remained in power? And, let’s suppose, for just a moment, that the Iraquis do establish a demomcracy of sorts in that dangerous part of the world. Can we even imagine how many lives that may save over generations to come?

Posted by: James Martin at December 13, 2005 11:17 AM
Comment #101917

“You act like now that W has spoken we know the real answer.”

Nope, I just dont discount everything simply because he’s a Republican.

“Some people never learn”

But yet, they keep twisting the truth to get votes dont they.
Bush lied! Bush created Katrina to kill blacks! Bush sank the Titanic! and now he’s “cavalier” about the deaths of the enemy.
What nerve.

Posted by: kctim at December 13, 2005 11:19 AM
Comment #101918

While I agree with your sentimnets and believe that Bush hasn’t made a correct decision since before he was elected, where did you learn math? 30,000 killed, while totally heinous, is not .115% of Iraqi population. According to your population chart, Iraq’s population is over 26,000,000. 30,000 is not more than 10% of the population.

Posted by: Lew at December 13, 2005 11:25 AM
Comment #101919

The BDB:
Various polls have been published that conflict with your assertion that Iraq people are welcoming the invasion.

In fact a ABC News poll published this morning stated that most Iraqis disapprove of the presence of U.S. forces in their country. Less than half saying their country is better off now than it was before the war. 50% said the U.S.invasion of Iraq was wrong, up from 39 percent in February 2004.
They reported that the those polled are optimistic about Iraq’s future though.
About the Sunnis, the poll said that only a third in the Sunni regions were optimistic about their country’s future. Whereas Shiites, who with the Kurds dominate the current parliament, had a much more positive view.

The poll also said that a majority of both the Sunni and Shiite population say they favor a unified country, however. But what is the likelihood of that happening?

Think about it for a second. You’re an Iraqi civilian who has lived through an unbelievably horrible situation for 3 years, you’re looking for a silver lining in the upcoming elections and the person responsible for invading your country says,
“30,000 more or less” relating to your neighbors and countrymen. i think you’d have every right to be offended.

The Bush administration didn’t ‘get it’ when the pictures of detainee abuse were published and the people of those nation’s cried foul. They didn’t ‘get it’ when the representatives of the US flushed copies of the Koran down the toilet and the Muslim world went up in arms. And they won’t ‘get it’ when the Iraqis complain about the cavalier attitude that this leader has toward killing innocent civilians.

More or less.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 11:31 AM
Comment #101920

I was appalled when I listen to Bush. It was not so much what he said, but the way he said it, the expression on his face, the tone of his voice spoke much louder than what he said. He was almost clavier about the deaths on Iraq.

He could have worded his answer in a much better way. For instance, “Regretiably we believe the Iraq has lost XXX number of people. Of course this figure may go up or down, as time goes on..”

Something of that effect.

Linda H.

Posted by: Linda H. at December 13, 2005 11:31 AM
Comment #101921

I got it John. It’s just that I don’t think there is any way to know a real number on Iraqi deaths. “More or less” is a phrase that is used in everyday situations, much like “give or take a few”, six of one, half dozen of the other”, “and so on”, etc. In varying contexts all sound cavalier but are really terms we have all grown to uinderstand and accept. Especially in a situation where an unexpected quaestion needs an answer that is not really known.

Posted by: steve smith at December 13, 2005 11:33 AM
Comment #101922

Lew :


30,000 killed, while totally heinous, is not .115% of Iraqi population. According to your population chart, Iraq’s population is over 26,000,000. 30,000 is not more than 10% of the population.

i never said more than 10%. 0.115% Less than one percent is what i posted.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #101926

i never said more than 10%. 0.115% Less than one percent is what i posted.

==========

100% of the country and 100% of the world have seen the toll. The damage has not just been done in Iraq…

Posted by: tree hugger at December 13, 2005 11:42 AM
Comment #101932
Bush lied! Bush created Katrina to kill blacks! Bush sank the Titanic! and now he’s “cavalier” about the deaths of the enemy.

kctim,
I agree. If you look at the Bush dynasty back to George Herbert Walker, it’s not hard to tie everything that’s gone wrong this century to them. The cronyism, the ties to big oil, the marginal abilities - it’s never changed.

But I dont agree with the criticism of being cavalier about the Iraqi deaths. Because most Americans are cavalier about it.

Posted by: Schwamp at December 13, 2005 12:00 PM
Comment #101936

Schwamp,

Speak for yourself, I am an American and I not “cavalier” about anyones death. And, although I am a despiser of Bush, I don’t think he was being dismissive of the casualties. He just can’t face up to the fact that he is the cause of so many unnecessary deaths. So he speaks of it in the only way he can, without emotion. To feel emotion for that responsibility would be devestating for anyone but the most depraved sociopath.

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 12:17 PM
Comment #101938

Speaking of numbers, who is responsible for more Iraqi deaths, Hussein or Bush? (more or less, of course)

Posted by: crust at December 13, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #101939

George Bush has always been cavalier in his answers to the concerns of wounded Iraqis, improverished Americans, and the millions who exist without any medical insurance. He only appears sincere when dealing with Focus on the Family, or Pat Robertson. This point is that Mr. Bush and his ilk are only concerned with their own class of people, the wealthy corporate interests. I, personally, am just sick of his lies and double dealing. It is no wonder the US has lost the respect of most of the world (except Saudi Arabia) and about 48% of its own population

Posted by: Miller at December 13, 2005 12:23 PM
Comment #101944

Speaking of numbers, who is responsible for more Iraqi deaths, Hussein or Bush? (more or less, of course)

==================

does it matter? once your dead its all the same. lights out. would you rather be bombed or beheaded? wouldn’t you rather have neither?

most of the civian deaths that are attributed to saddam are from the 80’s right? i may be wrong, i concede to that, but if i am right the most recent cause of mass Iraqi deaths were by way of Bush.

Again, death = death. Those who kill are justly villified, I dont’ care if i am from the country doing the killing, i don’t have to support that, my heart won’t allow me, and my brain is smart enough to know the difference.

Posted by: tree hugger at December 13, 2005 12:26 PM
Comment #101949

Loaded? A loaded question? This is a straightforward question: How may Iraqis have been killed so far?, and Bush handled the situation well and answered straightforwardly without any hesitation or embroiderment. This was Bush at his best.

It’s a crying shame he hasn’t answered non-scripted questions at this point. Knowing how many Iraqis have been killed tells us how many deaths we are in for. We have a responsibility to the dead Iraqis to make sure, if we can, that their deaths have not been in vain.

Answering unscripted basic questions about this war is a small step for Bush in the right direction. If he wants my support and confidence he’ll have to do a lot more of this, and this is a step (albeit a small step I would consider matter of course for any president, especially during a time of war) in the right direction.

Posted by: Max at December 13, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #101951

You Republicans whine too much. It’s not fair he was asked a non-scripted question. Puh-lease.

Posted by: Max at December 13, 2005 12:33 PM
Comment #101954

“Bush at his Best???”
Bush, at his best or not, is nothing but a lying sleazebag.

Posted by: capnmike at December 13, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #101970

Most of the civilian deaths have come from terrorist attacks. This is what our troops are trying to prevent! Who really gives a shit how Bush phrases something?
If the Democrats really care about the Iraqi civilians, they would be talking about a plan for the future of Iraq, not how bush says something. It should be clear to everyone by now that he’s not a very good speaker.
Yes, things in Iraq could be better, but at least Bush and the Republicans are taking the situation seriously, for the most part. I have neither seen nor heard anything that would lead me to believe that the Democrats see Iraq as anything other than a political opportunity.
At least Bush has a positive attitude about the future of Iraq. This is because he has a plan for it. It’s not the best plan, but since the so-called “opposition party” refuses to offer a plan of their own, or even work with the President to improve his, we have to live with it.
The Democrats have to realize that there is more to the Iraq war than what caused it, or how the president talks. They are living in the past and people who want to be leaders can’t do that. Leaders have to care about the future.
The important thing is the future of Iraq. If that is less important to you than the president’s choice of wording or his reasons for going to war in the first place (hint, hint: he’s not going to be running for office again), than please explain to me why we should vote for the Democrats. Other than complaining about the past, I don’t see where they have anything to offer the American people, or the Iraqi people, on this issue.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #101979

I’m confused, is the 30,000 figure relating to the invasion phase or does it include the occupation phase as well?

Posted by: Tim at December 13, 2005 1:07 PM
Comment #101980

Let’s not forget about how many of our sons, daughters, fathers, uncles, sisters have died too.
What a god damned pointless waste!
What a lying piece of sh!t president!
He should go back to learning how to read “my pet goat” instead killing so many people.

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 1:08 PM
Comment #101982

Dems are drowning. They are grasping for anything they can. If Bush scratched his balls, dems would call him a pig and say that he hates women. Dems always make something into nothing just to make bush look bad.

Posted by: david at December 13, 2005 1:09 PM
Comment #101985

TheTraveler:
Please post your source about the terrorists are responsible for the civilian deaths. Because there are many that disagree with that statement. According to online tracking sites:

- 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years.
- Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths.
- Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths.
- 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003. (the terrorists as you describe them didn’t come over the border until many months after the American invasion)
- US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
- Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
- Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
- Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices.
- Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths.
- Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets).

i post these facts as a reference, not as a defense. Whether one civilian died, or thousands died, George W. Bush was responsible for their deaths. He ordered the invasion and disrespects their honor by his cold and cavalier attitude.


Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 1:10 PM
Comment #101990

John,
It would seem that the terrorists and insurgents would have killed more civilians than U.S. forces, especially since we usally give advanced notice before we try to purge an area of them. I would just like to know where you got your numbers from so I can check it out and come to my own conclusion.

Posted by: Tim at December 13, 2005 1:19 PM
Comment #101996

Tim:
i already did post some sources.
Here’s another one: (link)

Care to back-up you claim that ‘it would seem that the terrorists and insurgents…. killed more’ based on?

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 1:30 PM
Comment #101999

The arrogance of our nation is incomparable. Arguing over the number of deaths or GW’s attitude isn’t the point.

Bush didn’t ask ANY of these people if they wanted to die for democracy in their country.

In our revolutionary war, we decided to fight for democracy, and we were willing to make the sacrifice. But WE decided.

I ask anyone on this blog…how can any of us be so cavalier about the life of a child in another country?

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 1:34 PM
Comment #102003

John,
I wasn’t claiming anything yet, unlike many people I like to research things thouroughly then make an opinion. What meant I was that if one were to go soley by media reports it just “seems” that there are more instances and more of greater severity of insurgent/terrorist inflicted civilian casualties than of U.S. Regardless, I know that this is not what you were getting at in your opinion, but it did raise this question in my mind.

Posted by: Tim at December 13, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #102005

To the person who just said “how can any of us be so cavalier about the life of a child in another country?”, I ask this: what are you feelings about the mass grave of mainly Kurdish chldren that was uncovered, and the fact that that was in retalliation for the Kurdish led uprising against Saddam that took place shortly after the 1st Gulf War?

Posted by: Tim at December 13, 2005 1:40 PM
Comment #102014

John,

I’m not going to be pulled into an argument of numbers using “facts” neither of us can prove. Most of the “online tracking sites” I’ve seen don’t seem credible.

I’m not saying there’s been no collateral damage. I’m just using common sense. Our troops are fighting the terrorists, the ones who are actually trying to kill civilians.

It’s true that if you don’t support the war you support the terrorists. I don’t care if you supported the war in the first place. Whether or not you support our current efforts, that’s what’s important.
Bush does care about the Iraqi civilians, at least to the point that he has a plan for the future that involves their freedom. It may not be very good, but at least he’s trying. Meanwhile, the Democrats complain about how he talks.
If the Democrats are unwilling to support his plan, or are unwilling to come up with your own plan because it’s not politically expedient, then they are disrespecting the still living Iraqis with their cold cavalier attitude.
If you are unwilling, unable or just plain afraid to be better than Bush, then do us all a favor and quit whining about him.
When the Democrats realize that what’s actually going on in Iraq and the future of Iraq is more important than Bush’s popularity, this will become a winning issue for them.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 1:51 PM
Comment #102018

I would say that killing my innocent child in Baghdad doesn’t make up for it.

And who is GW to decide who dies in retribution?

Oh, I’m sorry, but you shouldn’t have lived next to those guys who turned out to be insurgents. Tough luck, but thanks for the sacrifice you made for democracy in the middle east.

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 1:54 PM
Comment #102019

It’s true that if you don’t support the war you support the terrorists.
Posted by TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 01:51 PM
=================================================
Bull! That’s the most treasonous and Un-American post yet. You must be a spy for al-Queda and a Baathist!

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 2:03 PM
Comment #102021

Tim,

BTW that Kurdish uprising came at the instigation of Bush Sr. who didn’t back them up as he promised.

I’m appalled at the loss of ANY innocent life. But you are sitting here justifying the death of one child for another, while you sit at home making zero sacrifice.

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #102024

Whatever you say, dave. If supproting anti-terrorist operations is un-American, I guess most Americans are un-American too…

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 2:09 PM
Comment #102030

As I said: only al-Queda baathist operatives would say I am a terrorist for being against this stupid war.

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 2:28 PM
Comment #102040

TheTraveler:

I’m not going to be pulled into an argument of numbers using “facts” neither of us can prove. Most of the “online tracking sites” I’ve seen don’t seem credible.
i’ll take that as a no.

I’m just using common sense. Our troops are fighting the terrorists, the ones who are actually trying to kill civilians.
i’ll take that as supposition.
It’s true that if you don’t support the war you support the terrorists.
Ah, i see. It’s true, is it?


Unfortunely TheTraveler, i feel that your version of the truth and my version of the truth will never meet.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 13, 2005 2:45 PM
Comment #102046

Unfortunely TheTraveler, i feel that your version of the truth and my version of the truth will never meet.

Oh, well. At least we both support the current efforts of our military. We both agree it’s important to root out the terrorists and train the Iraqi military. Don’t we? After all, we both care about the Iraqi people. We both want them to have self-determination and be free of terrorist attacks. Don’t we?
At least I do (Dave’s little bit of silliness notwithstanding). And I hope you agree with me and the president that the future of Iraq and the safety of its people is more important than words or political positioning. I seriously hope that the future of Iraq is more important to you than the fact that Bush is a bad speaker.

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 3:00 PM
Comment #102055

If only he was just a bad speaker…

Posted by: Dave at December 13, 2005 3:14 PM
Comment #102074

If only he was just a bad speaker…

I know. He hasn’t been too good at leading the war, has he? Not bad, but not too good, either.
It would be nice if we had an opposition party in this country. One with leadership skills. One that could have beat Bush and the Republicans last year, and won the war already. A party that has plans for the future… Oh, well. Wishful thinking…

Posted by: TheTraveler at December 13, 2005 3:36 PM
Comment #102095

Don’t blame the Dems for not winning a war they didn’t start. They didn’t have the balls to stop GW, I’ll admit, but GW is to blame for the deaths, because he put them in harms way

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 4:29 PM
Comment #102103

Loren,

I don’t blame the Dems. They can’t help it if they’re not cut out to be leaders.

I blame the terrorists. If they weren’t killing people, we would have been out of Iraq long ago.
Still, it would be nice if the Dems would at least try to do something to help the situation… Like I said, at least Bush is trying to help the Iraqis.

And we are winning. Not quickly, I’ll admit. Things would probably go smoother if the Dems would either work with Bush or come up with a better plan. Or both. But, as we’ve already discussed, they have neither the balls nor the leasdership skills for that kind of thing.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #102104

The right is having a very difficult time spinning this. I guess the home office hasn’t released the talking points yet.

I saw this speech and I do not even remember the “more or less” part, but what did strike me was how glib he was. His mannerisms, the way he was answering questions. He was very smug and glib. This president does not do well with unscripted questions, which explains why he never does Q&A unless it is staged. Too bad for him that Jeff Gannon got found out.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 4:54 PM
Comment #102106

Traveler,

The terrorists attacked US on 9/11. The insurgents are fighting GW in Iraq. If you could just try to understand the difference.

BTW, I don’t hear ANYTHING from GW that tells me that he is trying to help the real Iraqis. There are those who are well connected in Iraq to the neocons who will have power, but the average Iraqi isn’t going to get diddly.

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 4:59 PM
Comment #102113
They didn’t have the balls to stop GW, I’ll admit, but GW is to blame for the deaths, because he put them in harms way

This is a good point. People often like to point to the low poll numbers of the Democrats. All have very low poll numbers right now. I think there is an important difference though, between the disapproval of Republicans and disapproval of Democrats. The Republicans are in control, and the polls show people are not happy with their leadership. The Democrats are the opposition party and the polls reflect the fact that they have not been acting like the opposition party.

Democrats will recieve low numbers from Republicans, that’s a gimme. But what the Dems are plagued by is that they are getting low numbers from Democrats as well. If they want to improve their numbers they need to start being Democrats again and become the opposition party.

65% of Americans disapprove of the job congress as a whole is doing. The key for Democrats is to find out why, then set an agenda based on that.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 5:16 PM
Comment #102119

I totally agree with you JayJay.

If I could do something to kick the Dems in the ass, I would. But even if I do that, they are still the opposition party.

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #102121

“It’s true that if you don’t support the war you support the terrorists. If the Democrats are unwilling to support his plan, or are unwilling to come up with your own plan because it’s not politically expedient, then they are disrespecting the still living Iraqis with their cold cavalier attitude.
If you are unwilling, unable or just plain afraid to be better than Bush, then do us all a favor and quit whining about him.”
—————————————————————————
From a Desert Storm infantry vet:

don’t keep telling everybody to stay the course when the course sucks. It’s not MY job to figure out a solution but on the other hand, I’m not the one who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place. See, in my humdrum day-to-day world, the trick is to be enough of a man to admit when you’ve been so obviously wrong and then humbly make it right. I don’t see any sense of that kind of mindset in the current political climate, and that makes me pretty mad considering how many of these clowns prop themselves up as “down to earth” and “folksy”. They all wind up looking like slick little snot-nosed pretty boys who were raised by nannies and never had to answer
for anything.

I’ll forgive you for being sick of finger-pointing without a plan if you’ll forgive me for being sick of hearing how the onus is somehow on ME to draw up a way to fix this train wreck of a war/adminstration/presidency/election/house majority leader/session of congress/patriot act/department of defense/department of homeland security. If it looks like a duck and smells like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck, and pointing that out without offering what else it could or should be only makes sense. I’ll leave the supposition to the pundits. I’m not the one running for office. I’m just paying the bill for this mess.

Posted by: macsonix at December 13, 2005 5:25 PM
Comment #102128

The insurgents are fighting GW in Iraq.

No, that’s not what is going on. The insurgents (the same as terrorists with a watered-down name) are killing innocent Iraqis. If they weren’t doing that, we would be out of Iraq already. They kill many more civilians than they do our troops. Many of the attacks are random killings. I know this from reading the newspaper every.
What the terrorists are doing in Iraq is no different than what happened on 911. Not one bit. Like I said, it’s not important if you supported the war itself. But if you do not support the current operation (or propose a more efficient plan), they you by default support the “insurgents,” as you call them. In that case, as John would say, you have a cold and cavalier attitude toward the Iraqi citizens.

BTW, I don’t hear ANYTHING from GW that tells me that he is trying to help the real Iraqis… but the average Iraqi isn’t going to get diddly.

Well, he’s giving them as much protection as he can until they can get their military up and running (I seem to remember mentioning earlier what the Dems can do to help with this). And they now have some say in their future. They get to vote. A lot of little freedoms you and I don’t think about much…

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 5:37 PM
Comment #102143

I’ll forgive you for being sick of finger-pointing without a plan if you’ll forgive me for being sick of hearing how the onus is somehow on ME to draw up a way to fix this train wreck of a war

I’m not really talking about you; I was thinking more about Congress, specifically the Democrats (although John’s article does illistrate the point). I never said things are going perfectly, although you’re use of the term “train wreck” makes little sense.
The Democrats really could make this their issue. But they would rather talk about what the President did in the past than what they would do in the future.

It’s not MY job to figure out a solution but on the other hand, I’m not the one who wanted to invade Iraq in the first place.

Unfortunately, that’s the attitude of the entire party and not just on Iraq. It’s also the reason why the Democrats have been loosing so many national elections lately. Like I said, they seem to be either unable or unwilling to be leaders.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 6:05 PM
Comment #102145
If they weren’t doing that, we would be out of Iraq already.

I think you’ve got it switched. They are doing that BECAUSE we are there.

BTW I doubt the insurgents have the fire power to kill as many innocent Iraqis as the US military has.

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 6:14 PM
Comment #102151

I think you’ve got it switched. They are doing that BECAUSE we are there.

I know I don’t have it switched. I read the news! I’ve talked to people who have been there. Civilians are dying in terrorist attacks almost daily. That’s what we are trying to put a stop to. They stop killing people, we leave. It’s simple cause-and-effect. If they weren’t killing people, we would have been out a long time ago.
By the way, the reason we’re not using our superior fire power is that we’re trying to avoid collateral damage.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 6:29 PM
Comment #102155

If they weren’t killing people, we would have been out a long time ago.

To elaborate, if it weren’t for the terrorists, both parties as well as the Iraqi government would have seen to this, leaving only enough troops to train the Iraqi military. There would have been no other reason to stay.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 6:43 PM
Comment #102156

You believe that insurgents have killed 30-60,000 Iraqis all by themselves, and the US hasn’t inflicted collateral damage? Wow

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 6:47 PM
Comment #102157
I know I don’t have it switched. I read the news!

The Traveler,

What, the liberal media! I didn’t think you righties believed the liberal news. Maybe you got one of those papers with news that Bushco paid for.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 6:54 PM
Comment #102158

You believe that insurgents have killed 30-60,000 Iraqis all by themselves, and the US hasn’t inflicted collateral damage? Wow

I did not say that! Now you’re just putting words in my mouth. I said:
I’m not saying there’s been no collateral damage. in my post on 1:51 PM.

We have accedently killed many people. The terrorists have purposely killed many more.

They are there for the express purpose of killing people. We are there to stop them.

Collateral damage is a bad thing and our military goes out of it’s way to avoid it. But it does happen.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 6:58 PM
Comment #102161

What, the liberal media! I didn’t think you righties believed the liberal news. Maybe you got one of those papers with news that Bushco paid for.

No, I haven’t got hold of one of our Iraqi newspapers yet. ;-)

I don’t distrust the “liberal media” as much as some, although I do believe some of the news is slanted in that direction. I was even newspaper reporter for short time.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 7:11 PM
Comment #102162

Justified or Not?

China comes to the conclusion that the United States is a threat to thier Country. They use the excuse to declare war on the US because we have shown that we will attact a nation who we feel is a threat. We have nuclear weapons and have shown the world we will use them if we want too. We are a christian nation of course so we are a threat to China’s Buddist’s culture. The list goes on and on.

Of course this is only hypothetical, but you can see my point. We do need to be concerned about how the world looks at us. History usually repeats itself if we don’t learn from the first mistake.

This post was just to show the point of why it was important for the US to be right for our justifacation for war. If we turn out to be wrong, which seems to be the case. What stops a country from making the same excuse for war against the US and then saying later, Ok we were wrong but if we had to do it all over again I’d still do it???

Posted by: Rusty at December 13, 2005 7:11 PM
Comment #102164
We have accedently killed many people.

War is not an accident. Especially this one. 30,000 to 60,000 deaths are not acceptable for a war that should have never happened. If it is found out in the near future that these people died based on a lie or misleading information, we will be in a world of hurt. Bushco is buying the news now, but eventually the Iraqis will find out what has really been going on, and when they do, I don’t think they are going to be too happy about it. Then look out.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 7:13 PM
Comment #102165

there is probably nothing that bush has said or will ever say that is based on truth and said with eloquence.

the man has lied over and over. he is a cheat. he has done nothing to improve our safety, economy, health insurance, universal standing, education (he’s f—‘d that up) or morale.

what’s worse is that there are still those ignorant enough to trust him.

Posted by: lori at December 13, 2005 7:21 PM
Comment #102167

Rusty,

You are 100% correct. All our “pre emptive” war has done is put others on high alert, and allowed some to become stronger. Iran has not been bothered by it’s biggest enemy, Iraq, for a couple years now. The question is, what have they been doing with this time? The other question is, if we eliminated their biggest enemy, then who is their biggest enemy now? As you said it is a dangerous message the President sent when he said even though our intel was wrong we would have invaded anyway. Suddenly, we have become the fundamentalist freedom fighters.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 13, 2005 7:28 PM
Comment #102169

Traveler,

I want to make one thing very clear: Many of the insurgents are using acts of terrorism against their own people. These people should be destroyed.

However, most of the insurgents are Iraqis who don’t want us there. I don’t blame them for that sentiment. Many lost family members because of the US invasion of Iraq. Many don’t want their country to turn into Iran.

Posted by: Loren at December 13, 2005 7:36 PM
Comment #102175

I want to make one thing very clear: Many of the insurgents are using acts of terrorism against their own people. These people should be destroyed.

Thank you. I’m glad you understand that.

However, most of the insurgents are Iraqis who don’t want us there.

Guess what: I agree with them! At least on that one point. I don’t like the war, but I see the necessity.

Many lost family members because of the US invasion of Iraq.

That’s not an excuse and it’s certainly not a justifacation. They know darn well by now that as soon as they stop the killing we’e going to leave.
You, me, both parties, our government, the Iraqi government, the vast majority of the American people and the vast majority of the Iraqi people all want the war to end and our troops to return home. But the killing has to stop first. Nothing we’ve done can justify a single terror atack.

Many don’t want their country to turn into Iran.

That has nothing to so with us, either. Fortunately, they can now speak their mind at the ballot box.

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 8:03 PM
Comment #102176

Wow, I’ve been posting straight on since noon! Time for a break.

Thank you all for the discussion. It’s been a while since I participated in a good argument on Iraq. I guess I was in the mood…

Posted by: The Traveler at December 13, 2005 8:07 PM
Comment #102183

I see bush thinks 30,000 deaths more or less are ok. Would he think if his daughters were among the 30,000 more or less that would be ok??? I lost two children when they were young and still at 71 I miss them terribly. No one can feel the loss of a child until it happens to them. I can feel the sorrow of the Iraqi people.

Posted by: artyjo at December 13, 2005 8:31 PM
Comment #102192

wow thankyou for shutting up aboout the stupid war on christmas and talking about something real.
I have family in Iraq and i can sum up my views in one bumper sticker.

Support our troops bring them home

30,000 more or less is to high a price to pay
one death is to high a price
in a war over oil

Posted by: bumperstickers at December 13, 2005 8:58 PM
Comment #102200

I’m no Bush defender, but let’s understand that our troops have not gone in and wantonly killed innocent civilians. The insurgents, however, have.
I did not want us to go into Iraq in the first place, but I won’t stand by and listen to people act like it’s all our fault that these innocents are being targeted by their own countrymen.
If they would stop fighting, we could leave now. They don’t have to surrender. Just stop fighting.
Yes, it was Bush, Rummy, Cheney, and Wolfowitz who made bad decisions in the beginning and didn’t plan for anything like this. And it’s them who have botched it ever since. But for crying out loud, it’s not our troops who are blowing up crowds of families in the streets for no reason. (with the exception of accidental collateral damage, which is a sorrowful side effect of urban war).

John;
If you are only saying that the admin can be more empathetic in their speech, I think that it’s a reflection of their total disregard for the human costs of their policies. They need a lot more than empathy in their words. Their problem is a total lack of concern for individuals’ rights and lives. They consider loss of lives to be a calculated and acceptable loss in the big picture; whether it’s in Iraq or here at home.

Posted by: Cole at December 13, 2005 9:28 PM
Comment #102227

I agree that President Bush was insensitive when speaking about the lives lost in the war, but as we all he’s never been an eloquent speaker.

Loss of life is a terrible thing, especially for the families that feel it directly, but is it worse than life with out freedom. You can call me idealistic, but 113,842 Americans lost their lives in WWII alone, fighting for the freedom of other nations against the rath of a dictator.

Direct parallels can’t be drawn between WWII and the war in Iraq, as both times and circumstances are different, but the basic idea remains the same. This war is being fought for world security (crush Islamic extremist terrism), economic reasons (bring stability to the area where the world gets its oil), freedom for the Iraqi people to govern themselves, and not let a dictator set the presedence for others by making a joke out of the United Nations. Iraq has the natural resources, just as America did, for an infant democracy to thrive. Once democracy takes hold the Iraqi people will have reasons to live, and Islamic extremism, which thrives on fear and hopelessness, will fade away.

The cost is huge, as freedom has always been in the past, but it always pays off. Look at the lives we lead today in this great nation.


Posted by: Luke at December 13, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #102455

This war is being fought for world security (crush Islamic extremist terrism), economic reasons (bring stability to the area where the world gets its oil), freedom for the Iraqi people to govern themselves, and not let a dictator set the presedence for others by making a joke out of the United Nations. Iraq has the natural resources, just as America did, for an infant democracy to thrive. Once democracy takes hold the Iraqi people will have reasons to live, and Islamic extremism, which thrives on fear and hopelessness, will fade away.

If the war was being fought for world security and to crush Islamic terrorism, how is it that Iraq and the entire region seems less secure two years after the famous mission accomplished photo op? How is it that there are more frequent terror attacks (some may argue a better term would be insurgent attacks) now, after nearly three years of American involvment? If security and stability in the region are primary objectives, I’d have to give our Commander and Co. a big fat F on that one.

Secondly, the one person in the world who has shown the UN his middle finger more than anyone over the last twenty years has GOT to be Bush. Can I get a witness?

Finally, anyone who thinks that Iraq has the resources and infrastructure necessary for democracy to gain a foothold needs to open up their Intro to PoliSci text again. Time after time, the west has tried to install some form of a democratic government in some underdeveloped nation the world over, and within a generation, failure, corruption and coups have been the result without exception. Democracies and representative forms of government need a very specific set of ideal circumstances in which to thrive, not least of which are:

-serviceable and widespread power and utility infrastructures
-clean water and clean land for agriculture
-gainful employment readily available in both urban and rural areas for able-bodied young and middle-aged males
-access to investment capital and a strong local currency
-lack of occupation by a foreign power

Sorry - your post sure sounds great, but it’s as realistically viable as a football bat.



Posted by: macsonix at December 14, 2005 4:58 PM
Comment #102523

Macsonix,

I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my post, and you could be right that the war is unwinnable and a democracy in a nation such as Iraq is an impossibility. I agree that the Muslim culture of the middle east is backwards and will always prevent what we as Westerners consider a prosperous economy. If this is true, though, then the people of all underdeveloped nations ruled by dictators (both Muslim and non-Muslim) are doomed to live with no hope of bettering themselves. With out hope, why shouldn’t young men and women they turn to an extreme version of a religion used by their own governments for their political agenda?

Finally, your list of necessities for a democracy to thrive seem very viable for a country with the potential wealth of Iraq. It won’t happen over night, but look at the changes in China and India over the past decade.

You’ve given plenty of reasons why the current U.S. strategy on the war on terrism will fail, so reply with your solution?


Posted by: Luke at December 14, 2005 8:30 PM
Comment #102643

Poor George doesn’t know how to speak! The real importance is he doesn’t know how to act sincere. As he praised the head of Fema, Brown(GIVE ME A BREAK!) AND WONT TURN HIS BACK ON IRAQ UNTIL COMPLETE VICTORY! As You go to the polls Iraq remember the Franklin Roosevelt type speech about rebuilding New Orleans, seems to its residence hes already forgotten them. Most are still scattered all over tnis country and now are out of funds to get their lives back together.
the patriotic thing to do for New Orleans former residence is to cut GW, some slack Right! Get real the only thing that GW was concerned about was to make sure Haliberton and his other cronnies got thier pot-o-gold. How many displaced New Orleans residence are being hired to rebuild? Maybe he can win a few more votes if he give more money to faith based do gooders whose only concern lately is whether we call these multi religous times of the year and its crass commercialism Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays!

Posted by: Chad at December 15, 2005 7:02 AM
Comment #102798

This was pretty fun.

A few things the right is forgetting:


1. There were no ‘insurgents/terrorists’ in Iraq before we invaded. We created them. So let’s not pretend the reason we’re still there is to save the Iraqi’s from themselves.

2. Saddaam was a bad bad man. There are bad, bad, men and women in charge of many countries in the world right now, we only chose to invade Iraq. How about this? Forget the Middle East, the only people there who want our help are a bunch of multi-billionare sheiks, because if we aren’t there, they lose their palaces and customized airplanes. If we are going to waste American lives for a war people in the remote country don’t want, lets do it in Africa. At least we could stop some real genocide.

3. Re: the insurgents. Think if the situation were reversed. Pretend China came in and took over the US. Would you fight against them? If the US army was defeated by China, would you still try and perform in some guerilla insurgency? Or would you let them turn us all into a bunch of commies. Your neighbors could say, “Get over it, Communism is good, the Chinese seem happy and they tell us it’s great, they even brought in some people who used to live in the US and then went to China, and they say that communism is awesome” So your neighbors all sign up for the “American Communism Re-Education Force” so they can help the Chinese make this country into a great communist state. How long would you fight them (if you did at all) before you just “gave it up already” which you want the Iraqi’s insurgents to do (not anyone’s words here specifically, just the tone). Sure, I have some big problems with the way the country is run. I think the president is a big jerk. Alot of the decision he’s made I don’t agree with at all. I wouldn’t do many things the way he does. Just like many (maybe even most) Iraqi’s felt about Saddam. I know one thing, I would fight those damn commie bastards for comming into MY country, killing my cousin (by mistake, sorry, collateral damage), and telling ME what the USA should be like, until the day I died.

Posted by: Dave at December 15, 2005 1:01 PM
Comment #102870

Lug,

Typical comment from someone who can’t understand the difference. Remember Mr. Conservitive: Republicans support and have abortions too. Example,
The abortion law now in effect in Calif. was signed into law by Mr. Conservitive himself, Ronald Reagan. Bush Sr. and his wife Barbara are supporters of abortion rights. Bush Jr’s wife is a supporter of abortion rights. The list goes on and on.
The main thing is Bush is responsible for starting this war with Iraq, right or wrong. Bush is responsible for the deaths of 2,100+ American soliders. He is responsible for the deaths of, by his own words, 30,000 give or take a few,Iraqi lives.
Bush is not responsible for nor are you or I responsible for one women who chose to have an abortion. Bush has to answer to us, she has harmed only herself and has to answer to a higher authority.

Posted by: Rusty at December 15, 2005 4:31 PM
Comment #102933

In light of the original post, IMHO, I believe that people who do not like the way this country is run should do one of the following:

a. Try a little harder at voting time

b. Run for office yourself

c. move to a country that will follow your idea of what rules should be set rforth, and how to follow them

d. Be happy that your country is taking care of business the best it knows how (though I am not saying the best it can)


Understand, the office of the President is like a quarterback on a football team. Any lard-butt can sit at home and play the professional game much better than the guy on the field.

If you can’t stand this government that badly, start a revolution.

Posted by: VERITAS at December 15, 2005 8:57 PM
Comment #103089

VERITAS:
a: i did. i was and am a committeeperson for my party. i was and am a campaign worker for my party. Although we didn’t win, we made significant progress in my area. In my area the registered Republicans outweigh the Democrats by a ration of 2:1.
b: i did. i am an elected official in the county that i live. So even in a county that has a 2:1 ratio against my party, I still won my particular election. How about you, how do you contribute to society?
c: The whole: “if you don’t like it: leave” model is so tired and stale at this point, that commenting on this opinion is a waste of everyone’s time.
d: i did not bury my head in the sand when Clinton was in office; so why should i do it now? i believe in continual improvement. i believe that is the only way true progress is made. Darwin was correct; those who adapt survive and flourish. Those who accept their situation will be eaten by the bigger animal.

For you to pre-judge anyone, including me, as a lard-butt shows your utter contempt for your level of debate. In the future, you may benefit by your opinions when you frame those opinions with thoughtful and intelligent ideas and original thought.

Posted by: john trevisani at December 16, 2005 7:42 AM
Comment #103148

Luke,

Once again I will not pretend to know enough about everything happening in the middle east, Iraq especially, to know what the solution is. Can you give me an example of when in modern history a stunt like this has worked out in the long term how we had planned? My question is, why is it that we in the west consider a solution necessary in the first place, and if we agree that a solution is necessary in Iraq, then why is a solution not necessary in other troubled nations, as previously posted by others? After all, there is a blight on many other nations that is more cancerous, more atrocious, more deadly than the human rights issues now being propped up (after we’ve exhausted less plausible reasons) as justification for this preemptive war. The answer lies somewhere in your post, and I quote: I agree that the Muslim culture of the middle east is backwards and will always prevent what we as Westerners consider a prosperous economy.

What in your opinion specifically is BACKWARD about Muslim culture? And what did you learn in your many travels to Muslim nations that led to this epiphany? Or are you simply sitting on a throne built of equal parts condescending Christianity and crass consumerism, judging as backward any culture that doesn’t praise Jesus, shop at Wal-Mart and chase the almightly dollar like a dog on a squirrel? Don’t get me started how much this rationale sounds like the European missionary work done in the new world, India and Africa four or five hundred years ago. For God’s sake, how long will it take people to realize that democracy and economic prosperity are organic processes that simply cannot be induced? Apparently longer than four centuries.

My solution? How about focusing your war on terror on TERRORISM rather than oil? How about domestic prevention and following the 9/11 commissions’ guidelines for homeland security? As far as Iraq goes, well, since we can’t just pack up and leave…we’ll have to stick around and try to maintain some sort of peace and slowly pull the troops out, with a deadline in my opinion being the only way to ensure that the Iraqi forces know the onus is on them to pay attention, gut check, and take control. Then these people will be left to their own devices like they should have been in the first place. Only thing different is their dwellings and infrastructure will have been blown to bits and their population will have been decimated. Oh, yeah - and all their surviving young working age men will be really pissed off and feeling very, very unAmerican. Sounds like the perfect place for a democracy, yep.

Posted by: macsonix at December 16, 2005 11:41 AM
Comment #103478

Mr. Trevisani,

Are you the politician that the President should model himself after?

My analogy of “lard-butt” was not a direct assumption of your physical nature, but an example comparative of that ilk who willingly do nothing and complain, claiming a superior ability.

I commend you for taking steps in your respective office.

“a.” was a suggestion for the office of which you are complaining.

My contribution to society on the political level is that I vote for whom I believe will do the better job. If my candidate gets elected, and fails in his duties, so be it. I still believe he does/is doing/would do a better job than his opponent.

For instance, the preceeding democrat allowed the U.S. to be attacked abroad and at home, and did little to nothing about it. I don’t want my family terrorized because of a cowardly leader.

The current republican has made a mess, but he stands firm in his beliefs, and accepts resposability for things he has/had nothing to do with, as well as what he does. It’s called moral fiber, even if most disagree with his tactics/ideals.

The previous democratic candidate openly bribed people for votes. CNN showed it live. I was repulsed, and would not have voted for him, even if he could have created the perfect society for Americans.

My contribution is my vote, my voice, my uniformed service.

Posted by: VERITAS at December 17, 2005 11:45 AM
Comment #103479

Not a stab at any particular politician:

Politicians need to keep their dirty noses out of military affairs.

News media needs to keep their noses out of military affairs.

Ever since the Korean War was an active theater of concern, politicians have been interfering with the military’s ability to function.

In doing so:

We still have a North Korean threat.

We had our asses handed to us in Viet Nam.

We had to go back in to the Middle East.

We have developed a society of whiny liberal-minded sheeople who believe most anything Big Brother says. That leads to the demoralization of our fighting men and women in theater.

What if, the next time something like 9/11/01 happens, the military said:

FIX IT YOURSELVES!!!

What then?

Were the politicians able to negotiate peace with:

The Taliban? We did, after all, put them in power.

Al Quaida? We did, after all, put them in power.

No, it is the might of the military that has to get the politicians’ messes cleaned up, while the politicians create a mess at home.

Politicians:

STICK TO POLITICS!!!

Posted by: VERITAS at December 17, 2005 11:55 AM
Comment #103783

Macsonix,

I’m just agreeing with you in your statement that “the west has tried to install some form of a democratic government in some underdeveloped nation the world over, and within a generation, failure, corruption and coups have been the result” in saying that the Muslim religion is backwards. Because the majority of the Muslim dominated nations fall under “underdeveloped” category. I don’t agree that west’s attempt to install democracy in underdeveloped nations has failed with out exception. Japan, which up until WWII was an absolute monarchy, has become one of the richest most productive nations of the world because of the government the U.S. supported and nurtured during their occupation after WWII.

As for my opinion of the Muslim religion, I came by it in college where I came to know several Muslims. I’m a petroleum engineer, so I had several Muslims in my classes representing Kuiwat and U.A.E. I came to become friends with a couple of them (one in particular from Kuiwat), and talked to him about politics on a regular basis. He liked living in America, thought fairly highly of Americans, and was saddened by the 9/11. But when it comes to Israel or U.S. involvement in the middle east it quickly becomes an issue of religion irregardless of the wars between their countries or the genocide of certain Muslim sects by other Muslims. You don’t see predominately Christian, Hindu, Buddist, etc. countries banding together in this manner. The United States sided with the Muslim Croatians, and rightly so, against the Milosevic lead Serbia. I have an Indian friend who is Hindu and a Nigerian friend who is Christian who have both told me, unsolicited, that the Muslims in their countries cause a lot of problems. Look at all the problems in France, caused by who else but Muslims. Although my Muslims friends disapproved of the violence waged in the name of Islam, they thought the reasons behind the violence were legitimate. They refused to recognize that it is not the rest of the world that is holding down Islamic countries it is only themselves and their blind attachment to their religion. I personally have yet to meet an American that would treat a Muslim unkindly or unfairly because of his religion. The rest of the world hopes and prays for the success and hapiness of the predominately Muslim nations, as it is the only end to terrorism. Again, I must mention Japan. Japan has very little natural resources and changed completely into a much better country (and I think most Japanese would agree) in less than half a century. Why is it not possible for a country such as Iraq to do the same? Religion?

The reason we’re focusing on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle Eastern region is because they’re the only one’s crazy enough to kill themselves to kill us (because their religion?). North Korea may have nuclear weapons, but they know that if used, North Korea will no longer exist. Also, they aren’t killing innocent Americans with acts of terror. Finally, the Middle East is the supplier of oil to the world. You need stability in the region for the world economy to thrive.

I know that in the end you and I will have to agree to disagree, but I’ve enjoyed the debate. By the way, I am a Christian, am very prudent with my money, hence I shop at Walmart, but I’m not condescending towards other people of different race or religion. It is ashame you had to resort to personal attacks in an attempt to get your point across.

Regards.

Posted by: Luke at December 18, 2005 11:33 AM
Comment #104190

Luke,

1. I never resorted to personal attacks of any sort. I simply asked you a question, which you were free to answer.

2. Comparing Japan, a military superpower at the time, to Iraq circa 2003 is completely illogical and requires no response.

3. Here in Texas we have more than our fair share of people who will treat Muslims unkindly simply because of their religion. Hell, I know folks who’ll treat you unkind just because you’re Presbyterian and not Baptist. I’m not sure where you’re living, but it sounds like the Christians where you are must actually follow the teachings of Christ (which, by the way, are very neatly paralelled by the teachings of Mohammed) rather than just go to church once a week and act like the devil the rest of the time.

4. You’re not condescending towards others due to their race or religion? I guess calling them backward is in your eyes a compliment?

5. The muslims in other countries cause a lot of problems, eh? Yeah, so do the fundamentalist jackasses here in the USA. The idiot flying planes into buildings who thinks he is going to nirvana where he’ll lay down with 72 virgins has an equal - and it’s the idiot who reads the Left Behind series and thinks that the Christian USA exacerbating and perpetrating war in the middle east is inching the world closer and closer to the second coming of Jesus, when he and the other true believers will be swept up into heaven.

6. I think we can come up with better ways to enhance stability in the oil-rich mideast than starting a war with no end in sight in Iraq.

7. You can save more money voting against these dimwits than you can shopping at Wal-Mart.

8. Get with it, man…you’ve drunk too much kool-aid.

Posted by: macsonix at December 19, 2005 11:12 AM
Comment #104580

Macsonix,

I’m not going to argue with you any longer on this issue or lower myself to throw personal insults at you for your beliefs (political, religious, etc.). They certainly haven’t changed my point of view or disproved, in my opinion, anything that I’ve written, so I’m sure such tactics would not change your mind either, if used against you.

Maybe we’ll debate again in the future on another issue, or maybe, but I doubt it, we’ll actually agree on an issue in the future. I’ll leave it at that.

Regards

Posted by: Luke at December 19, 2005 9:39 PM
Post a comment