Worst President in History?

[goliath]

Originally posted by Shibby
that sounds like a :ghey: lovers quarl, and you know what Bush thinks about :ghey:

lol. "they ain't raght inna hed. there oughta be an amendment to constitushun that bans all gays."

[Chris]

Originally posted by goliath
bah - i like to argue! lol - i can;t do it with my wife so i need to do it somewhere. how bout, 'heated debate'. that cool?

Aye. Much better.

Chris

[kast]

i haven't posted often enough for anyone to recognize me, but when i saw this i had to type something in.

I believe that the war in Iraq was inevitable. Surely any president would have listened to the people of America and go forth with the whole Afganistan thing, but Iraq is a different story. The majority opinions rocked back and forth so much, simply because of the media. Sadam needed to be taken out of power. That is true. Another fact, however, is that different presidents go about foreign affairs in different manners. I believe that bush was a little pushy when dealing with the UN. I believe he did what he had to do in the end but could've done so much better had he fixed his speeches to not include accusations of "evil" of other countries.....oh, and let's not forget the ultimatum "if you're not with us you're against us." i mean, seriously, what happened to the right to be neutral? shit...we were neutral long ago...now we're in everything.


I love America, and i do not hate bush like i used to. I thought he was retarded and in speech he might be...however, as a president he ultimately has made many of the same decisions other presidents that people liked would've done. I am stating my "neutral" position because i don't believe you have to love or hate the bush administration...we are free to think analytically and take each factor into consideration. For that reason, I remain in the middle on the issue of bush, his administration, and our current foreign problems.

no country has a nice, pretty, clean past....but the big guy is always in the spotlight. No one likes the cops....except for when they're on your side.

[Chris]

Kast, good well rounded position. I agree Iraq was inevitable, but not for the reasons Bush gave us.

Chris

[Rhinosaurus]

Originally posted by goliath
the last time that th US forcefully invaded and occupied a foreign nation was in WWII with our ocupation of germany from, i believe 45-49. the only reason we did invade germany was because they were striving for world domination. that pissed us off. god gave US permission to dominate the earth - not them. so we kicked them off the playground.

We also occupied japan for a short time - and lets not forget what we did to those poor bastards! we killed hundreds of thousand of men, women and children with 2 bombs. if that's not terrorism i don;t know what is. significantly larger in comparrison to the 2700 that al-quieda claimed on 9/11 don;t you think? once again, the US is praticing that double-standard, hipocracy bullshit.

I can't believe how misinformed some people are. No offense but you should open a history book. We occupied Germany to rebuild it. After WWI the allies left Germany in shambles with a war torn economy and exterme inflation. This led to radical political parties with extreme views to start popping up promising change for the German people. Welcome the Nazi party and Hitler. To prevent this from happening again after the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan we and our allies occupied those countries to rebuild them, rebuild their economies and give their people a sense of hope, so that history would not repeat itself. By doing this we helped Germany and Japan to become economic powerhouses, which helped us and the world.

Japan... poor bastards??? Did you forget Pearl Harbor? The Bataan Death March? The countless lives that were taken by Japan when they invaded dozens of countries before even attacking us. I'll have you know that Japan had death camps that rivaled Germanies. Not to mention how they performed medical experiments on our captured GI's. 'Poor bastards'... your fuckin' nuts! We saved lives by nuking them, American lives and lives of our allies! Remember, they were the enemy and it was war. Don't think for a moment they wouldn't of used it on us if they had it.

One more thing.... you know 9/11 was not the first terrorist attack on America. There have been dozens and dozens of terrorist acts against America over many years. Granted Saddam couldn't attack the U.S. militarily but he did have the means and desire to attack us with terrorism. Think about this... if for an instant I were to think you were going to punch me, I would hit you first. I'd knock your fuckin' head off. Hell if I'm gonna take a shot first. That's what Bush did. He saw a threat and he hit first. Sometimes you need to take the offensive in order to be defensive. After 9/11 and what it did to our economy for that short instance was pretty devastating. What if it were a chemical or biological or even radioactive bomb that went off in the center of Manhattan. Our countries economic heart is located there and it would surely collapse. This country lives and dies by our economy. The American people, for a long time have not had to go without. If this economy falls you will have anarchy. You don't realize how great and how fragile this country is.

[Gods Son]

Originally posted by Chris
Do you susbscribe to the GOP newletter? This shit is so freaking biased...:rolleyes: I can't believe this person sunk so low as to attack FDR. WE WERE ALLIES WITH GB, IT WAS ABOUT FUCKING TIME WE GOT INVOLVED. OMG, I think my head is going to explode.

Chris

Facts cant be biased. He forgot to put about Pres. Johnson getting a recorded phone call from his top generals telling him were losing Vietnam and have no chance at victory. Johnson said im sending more troops. History Channel!! whatch it sometime. P.S. no matter how bad you think it is BUSH is the best candidate on tyhe ballot

[Chris]

Originally posted by Gods Son
Facts cant be biased.

Facts cannot be biased, but the way they are presented to you can be. Both this thread and the thread that were directly bashing Kerry are very biased. If this, or any political banter, were infact not biased I would A) die of shock B) Have some respect for the person who wrote it. I never said the facts were biased, but the way things were presneted in the artcile most certainly was. Hence my reasoning for calling biased crap. Just like the Kerry thread, and just like the Bush thread.

Chris

[Primal Instinct]

bonebreaker's copied editorial erroneously stated:

"FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year."


This is more or less a loaded statement because although Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we declared war on Japan, Germany was an ally of Japan and Italy under the Tripartite Pact. It was in fact, Germany who actually declared war on the United States a day or so after we declared war on Japan.




"Truman finished that war and started one in Korea, North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year."




Truman did enter Korea to combat the communist influence there. North Korea attacked South Korea with the backing of the Chinese. The United States came to the defense of South Korea, the US didn't initiate action there. There were a lot of lives lost on both sides. Weaponry and troop protection/communication defenses weren't as advanced like it is today and infantry was much more likely to suffer casualties than in later years.




"John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us."



Again, not quite accurate. The French were embroiled in Viet Nam prior to US involvement there. Kennedy did send troops there in an "advisory" capacity (in which they weren't allowed to participate in combat actions but did), and it was mainly the CIA who mislead the executive branch into thinking that there was an effective strategy there to fight (yet again) the spread of communism. Kennedy saw that this was a failed policy and signed Natinoal Security Action Memorandum 263 which would have brought home 1000 US troops by Christmas and all all US servicemen out of Viet Nam by the end of 1965. He chose disengagement, stating that the Viet Nam war was South Viet Nam's responsibility to either win or lose it. He was probably killed for it. On the day after JFK's funeral, newly sworn-in president Lyndon B Johnson signed NSAM 273, reversing Kennedy's orders and increasing the number of troops in Vietnam. The military saw Kennedy as a threat to the balance of power when he pulled out of the plans to invade Cuba and then the disengagement from Viet Nam. LBJ, big oil, weapons manufacturers and bankers saw to it that the war DID go on. There was just too much money to be paid and LBJ would gain the presidency and get to enact his public agenda for equal rights, public works, etc...




"Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year."


Agreed.




"Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent, Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions."




Pure bullshit. It's another loaded statement. After the death of Tito and failure of Yugoslavia, there was a vacuum of power in the former republic. Old fueds rekindled between the A civil war ensued as a grab for power was made by the Serbs. NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) decided to get involved in Bosnia to intervene in the ethnic cleansing by the Serbs there. It was NOT a unilateral move. There was documented war crimes going on in the region and attemots at peaceful resolution were ignored by the Serbs. They (Chechens and Serbs) were slaughtering the muslims and NATO removed the threat. This is not to say that the Muslims prior to Communist Yugoslavia did not take advantage of the minority Serb population under Nazi rule. However, the ethnic cleansing DID deserve attention from the free world and action there was well warranted.



"In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home."



Now we come to the real purpose of the editorial's author- to promote a Pro-Bush policy. The author does not give an unbiased view but rather a political opinion of the above actions. Bush invaded 2 countries (Afghanistan and Iraq) liberated them, yes and no. There is no secure government in either location yet after 1 year in Iraq and 2 in Afghanistan. Although Afghanistan has a provisional government under Hamid Karzai, they have no real infastructure nor a viable economy. There has been a serious security problem there and only the cities of Kabul, Kandahar and Jalalabad are the only somewhat secure areas there. The rural areas are still quite dangerous and progress is quite slow without a strong, nationwide contingent of military/police troop presence.

Iraq is a different matter, as it is a war prosecuted under dubious circumstances. The primary White House arguments were false (yellowcake uranium scandal), embellished (Iraq's alleged WMD possession and manufacturing capabilities), and very questionable, if not outright lies such as the testimony to Congress (less than 2 weeks before the Congressional vote to authorize the President the use of force against Iraq) that Iraq had unmanned ariel vehicles capable of dispersing chemical, biological and possibly even nuclear weapons on ships somewhere in the Atlantic which were said to be currently heading towards the east coast, probably off of the Carolinas.

Although nuclear inspectors were admitted to Iran and Libya, they only reported verifiable facts that Iran had an active nuclear reactor plan in which weapons grade material could be produced but nothing is done about it to this day. Libya was very disorganized and its nuclear ambitions were bareley in its infancy stages. Due to economic sanctions, they were unlikely to be able to build let alone produce weapons grade nuclear material. North Korea had sxpelled inspectors in 2002 and only recently considered to let inspectors visit their reactor IF talks with Washington were resumed. Talks were previously broken off by the US. North Korea has been estimated to have enough material for between 6-12 nuclear weapons and continues to produce weapons grade plutonium as we speak. There is no victory for the Bush team there, it is purely spin on the part of the editorialist.



"The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking, but...
It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the
Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51 day operation."



The Branch Davidian fiasco was a totally different type of operation and is not a valid comparison. You cannot compare a domestic seige (FBI operation) versus a wartime (US Armed Forces) action. They are apples and oranges. There are much different rules of engagement between the two situations. It should also be noted here that originally, it wasn't the FBI who messed up in Waco- it was an ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) operation. The ATF is a division of the US Treasury and did not follow proper potocol with regards to serving an arrest warrant. The FBI were eventually called in to take over the operation there.





"We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records."



Again, the true purpose of the editorial arises. Whether or not you are a Clinton hater is irrelevant to the facts of the current actions brought forth by George W. Bush's Presidency. For an administration who actually claimed to the UN to "Know where the WMD are", they certainly didn't get to them yet. If you choose to tread the partisan pathway, you might also ask where the pertinent records of Dubya's National Guard service reside. While the White House claimed to resolve the issue of possible non-service with the Guard, they provided only incomplete pay records. There wasn't even a performance review of Bush, as noted by his superior officers because he wasn't observed on duty. Curiously enough, there isn't even ONE fellow guardsman who even remembers Bush while he was supposedly working for the Guard in Alabama - not ONE! You would think that being the President of the US, at least one person would remember him on duty. It's not like he isn't a well known face in the media now. Guardsmen serving in the same unit definitely know who their fellow officers are, as they serve duty with each other, especially pilots. No one flies solo in the Guard. That should raise some flags but the press lets it slide. They are encouraged to do so by this Administration.




"It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to
destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Teddy Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick."




Again, partisan rhetoric. This type of crap talk just lessens the weight of the argument of the one who posts such drivel. This writer shows his/her ignorance of the prior issues and the actual historical facts surrounding them. Saying and writing something does not make it true. It is one thing to profess an opinion but quite another to present false facts or misleading information presented as fact. This person is an absolute moron with possibly just a high school education- possibly.



"It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in
Florida!!!!"



The recount in Florida was stopped due to a US Supreme Court order by a split decision. The election was not fully recounted therefore it became a "selection" by a conservative majority of the court. The delay in the recount was also created by the Bush team in which the "hanging and pregnant chad" crap was disputed and championed by the Bush team, flown to Florida on the Enron Corporation's company jet. This is a fact.




"Our military is GREAT!"


No one ever questioned the abilities or braveness of our military forces. As quoted by Dick Cheney in August 2000 before he became Vice President, "A commander-in-chief leads the military built by those who came before him. There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy. It is all work of the previous administrations. Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow...when that [Persian Gulf] war ended, the first thing I did was place a call to California, and say thank you to President Ronald Reagan..."August 30, 2000 in addrewss to the Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia.

Well, since the military performed so well during the Iraqi invasion, maybe the current Administration should call up and thank Clinton and Gore for the military's level of training and proficiency that they had supported during their tenure. I somehow doubt it though.


That post was a bunch of tripe.

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by checkoutmyrapp
It is the reason that our country is the way it is today. Yes we have found saddam but in the eyes of many people we will not have won the war in Iraq because it is political just like Vietnam was. You can never win a political war it is impossible. We have to ask for the publics opinion on everything that our government does. Do you think when we fougt (can't really spell) the british that we had all the support of the people, NO, well that seemed to work out ok, huh. I beleive the news is very liberal biased to the point were they are trying to get people against Bush. I am not syaing that I agree with all his veiws and everything he has done but I beleive that he has done a lot of good.

The mainstream media is definitely owned by the conservatives. Look at the ratio of talk radio programs- neoconservative vs. liberal, the rewards that thet the big media gets for backing and not pursuing obvious misinformations and very shady actions by the current administration is a greater market share to households in any one market. It used to be that one media owner could only control 15% of any major media market. Under the cureent administration, the FCC chaired by Colin Powell's son, Michael, has allowed that percentage to increase to 35% market share. Only 10 different corporations own 90% of the mainstream media. This includes television, radio and newspapers. In other words, 90% of what you see, hear and read is edited and filtered by 10 large corporations who use the news stories to promote their best business interests. This became evident at the outset of the 2000 US Presidential election. Never before have networks pushed a winner in a presidential election as close as that one BEFORE the votes were even counted in Florida. The GOP worked very hard to get the media on their side, you have to give them credit for that. They organized and left the democrats in the dust. They screamed so loud and so long about a liberal media bias that the media was afraid to put out anything that could be construed as liberal and the conservatives were in the game and eventually owned the game.

OK, with regard to Checkoutmyrapp, it is NOT the reason that our country is the way it is today. To understand why we our in the shape that we are in with regards to the mideast, we must first understand that the primary cause of disdain of the US is because of our practically unconditional support for Israel.


This terrorist situation did not just crop up. There are factors causing this unrest and anti-american movement dating back decades. Also, I should note here that Saddam wouldn't even have been in power but for the US supporting him during the Iran-Iraq War. He would have lost to Iran and been overthrown if, not for US military weaponry and intelligence. We kept the monster in power. The US gave him the WMD to begin with. Saddam was not the only country to use WMD in war either. Iran also used chemical weapons on Iraqi soldiers and its population. An interesting note seldom mentioned is that the Kurds who were gassed in Northern Iraq were gassed by a cyanide based chemical weapon that Iraq didn't even possess in its arsenal. However, Iran did use the same cyanide based chemical gases before on Iraq. It is quite probable that Iran was actually targeting Iraqi soldiers in the Kurdish region and launched these weapons in order to inflict damage upon the elite Republican Guard troops sent north to quell the Kurdish uprising. The US backed Iraq because they were sworn enemies to our enemy, Iran and its Islamic Fundamentalist Revolution.

Herein lies the rest of the story about terrorism, its roots and the factors surrounding today's problems in the region. To understand the answer to this question we must first understand how this first came into being. Although the US had an OK relationship with Israel since the 40's, it really began with the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan took the Presidency, he was primarily concerned with 2 things:

1) The Iranian revolution in 1979, in which the Shah of Iran was deposed and replaced by extreme Islamic fundamentalists. In the process, 52 American hostages were kidnapped in the US embassy in Tehran. This was probably the primary reason Jimmy Carter lost his re-election bid. It can be argued that Reagan's VP (George H. W. Bush) was deeply involved in the terms of release regarding the hostages. He was previously the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and may have used his former contacts to delay the release of the US hostages until after the Presidential election, ensuring a loss for Jimmy Carter and ensuring a win for Reagan. All the while, Reagan was talking tough in public to Iran- issuing threats and ultimatums- his administration was feverishly working behind the scenes to set up an illegal deal with Iran to trade the hostages for military arms sales. It should be noted here that the official policy of the White House and therefore the United States, was NOT to deal with terrorists. The proceeds went to fund illegal covert CIA backed operations in Nicaragua. The rebels were assisted in their efforts to overthrow the Nicaraguan government there. The arms were purchased by Iran to use against Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war out of the Israeli stockpile.

Reagan realized that Islamic fundamentalists were quickly becoming a dangerous and emerging threat. Iran was the primary concern at that time.


2) The Cold War. The US and the USSR were still at the heart of the cold war during this period in time. There was a very real and present danger during this time presented by both nations. Up until the Iranian revolution, the Shah of Iran provided two important functions in the region for the US during the cold war. Iran insured a cheap and steady supply of oil which would be unaffected by an OPEC boycott. The other thing the Shah provided to the US was a modern military (paid for by US oil sales) as a deterrent on the USSR's southern flank. Iran then was also considered a safety buffer- providing protection in some measure from Communism influences imposed by the Soviets- because of their proximity and placement as the protected gateway to the mideast from the USSR. The Iranian revolution removed all of those benefits for the US and posed a serious threat to oil supply and the balance of power between the two great superpowers of the world.

On Christmas day in 1979, the USSR invaded Afghanistan to prop up their failing puppet regime there. In response, the Afghan Arabs rose up and resisted the invasion, utilizing recruits from all over the middle east. Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, Syria, Egypt Kuwait, U.A.E. and Bahrain flocked to support the mujahadeen (Afghan resistance fighters) there. At this point in time, the US had no military allies in the region. President Reagan saw that the US needed to counter the Soviet presence there and funded the Afghans (using Pakistan as their business agent in the region) and placed naval forces in the Indian Ocean, as a counterweight to the Soviet menace. Intelligence and weapons training was provided to the resistance fighters there by the US- again, through Pakistani connections. The Persian Gulf became a primary concern for the United States. What was then thought to be a Soviet strategic bomber base appeared to be under construction- it actually later was determined to be an agricultural aid project- the US was concerned that if this base became fully operational, the Soviets could attack the US forces in the Indian Ocean. The US had little to no experience in desert warfare at this point and were truly at a disadvantage in such a situation. Another dangerous consideration was the possibility that the USSR might send lots of troops into Iran. The US had no forces in the area and would not be able to respond in time if such events actually took place.

Adding to turmoil, Iran was stirring up trouble in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and inciting anti-American rhetoric there. Until then, Lebanon was a Pro-western, friendly government on the Mediterranean Sea, with one important exception- Israel had previously invaded Lebanon claiming to counter Hezbollah terrorist activities generated there and purpetrated in Israel. Lebanon also had lobbed some missiles into the Golan Heights. So, remembering the experience from Iran, Reagan proceeded to invade Lebanon and staioned marines there which, in part was also to protect Israel from possible threatening behaviors of the Anti-West movement. Reagan had started to court Israel as an ally at this point in time. Anyway, car bomb attacks from Hezbollah twice targeted the US embassy in Beruit, as well as the marine barracks. Two hundred and seventy-eight marines died in that attack. The US wanted to keep forces there but wasn't prepared to pay the price of constant attacks and a multi-factional civil war there brought on by Iran and Syrian religious fervor. After a series of bombings and naval shellings, the US pulled out of Lebanon. We maintained support of Israel, as our stand alone ally in the western end of the Mediterranean with military arms sales, technical and financial aid. Our eyes turned back towards Iran.

It was generally believed that if the US supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War, the Iranians would fall and we would again have access to Iranian oil and the fundamentalist movement would fail as well. While not yet proven, it is possible that the US actually encouraged Iraq to attack the Iranians because the Iranians would have no oil to sell for funding their war and would bankrupt themselves in the process. Saddam's reward would be to keep the oilfields (agreeing to deal prices with the US) and put down the Iranian Shiites there, while putting a damper on his own Shiite population who started to become emboldened by the Iranian revolution. It would be a win-win situation.

A stalemate became apparent soon after the start of the Iran-Iraq war. So the US lead efforts to keep the war going by supplying intelligence and armanents (via Saudi Arabia and Egypt) and Rumsfeld was the President's envoy to Iraq and Saddam to prevent him (Saddam) from losing the war. Iran began attacking the tankers that Iraq used to carry it's oil to buyers outside the mideast. Iraq sent their oil out through neutral Kuwaiti tankers but Iran ignored the neutrality and sank those tankers as well. The Soviets then offered to protect the Iraq tankers by offering it's naval fleet to be their escorts. The US flipped out about this and reflagged the Kuwaiti ships to now become United States ships to protect the Iraqi oil shipments in the gulf. The US Navy then protected the "American" ships and would fill the shipping lanes with the naval fleet. It was a tense period because of the possibility of an Iran-US war. It never happened, although there were squirmishes in the gulf between both sides.

This is what finally brought Israel fully into the US's main network of allies. Using joint exercises and some [military training, Israel became our partner in the event of a Soviet run through the region. Israel and its arab neighbors did not get along too well. Eventually, Israel gained intelligence that Iraq was building a nuclear reactor and bombed it. This created even more disdain among the arabs. The US was seen to be its ally now and the discontent wit the US grew. The US still had few options for a friendly face in the region. Even so, the military relations with Israel was mostly because of Reagan pushing it on his military and state departments. It was a good military decision but it hurt our standings (and continues to) with the arab world. The US used Israeli military bases regularly and flew fighters and bombers in exercises form those bases. Although we didn't have operational bases (except for Bahrain), we did store military materiel in Oman and Egypt. This countered much of the Soviet military threat. By backing Saddam and his military in Iraq, we ensured that the Iranians would also be placed in check. All of these steps enabled the US military to be able to counter any threat by the Soviets in either the gulf or in the Mediterranean Sea.

The US moved into high gear supporting the Afghan rebels against the USSR of which, Osama bin Laden joined in an administrative effort. So, for a time, we were in effect, allies. The point of the exercise was to fight the USSR (yet again) by proxy. We helped supply the Afghans with supplies and money forcing the Soviets to increase expenditures. The turning point probably came when the US sent Stinger missiles to the resistance, who then used them against the big armored heliocopters (Hind), which were formerly almost unassailable and practically wiped out the Afghans with that alone. Now the tables turned and the USSR found themselves in a long drawn out war, losing thousands of soldiers and sinking countless amounts of money into the effort there. This in a large part, contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union which would probably have failed eventually but the protracted war and its immeasureable costs undeniably sped up the process.

With the failure of the USSR, there was no other primary superpower in the world and US military troop levels were then dramatically reduced. The Iran-Iraq War was over- an uneasy truce. Saddam eventually invaded Kuwait and the gulf war coalition was formed. Israel was not a part of the coalition and was "asked" to be neutral on the issue. Iraq, still remembering the 1981 Israeli bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor, fired scud missiles on Israel. Israel was "persuaded" not to counter-attack and to leave it to the coalition to exact vengeance. The US had previously sent Patriot missile batteries to Israel to protect the nation from missile attacks. Generally the Patriots worked but some missiles did get through and damaged neighborhoods in Israel. No one was killed there during this time.

Eventually, Saddam was driven out of Kuwait. Former VP George H. W. Bush was the president back then and it was Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney (now current VP) who made the call to halt the war on Saddam, allowing to his forces to retreat with a large portion of his Republican Guard forces, who promptly put down a Kurd and Shiite uprising back in Iraq. Bush stood by and did nothing about it. This further infuriated the arabs in the region.

I almost forgot to mention that as a primary condition for basing US military forces in Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War, the US had also promised to resolve the Israel/Palestinian conflict immediately after the Gulf War and that Palestinians would therefore have their own soviergn nation. The US DID NOT even attempt to carry out its promise to the arab coalition partners. This blunder cost the US much credibility with the arab world. In effect, the US was seen as an unconditional supporter of Israel and its governmental policies and not an honest broker in mideast affairs. The US wasn't very popular anymore in the region. Adding to this was the fact that US forces were still stationed in Saudi Arabia, while the original agreement that the US forces leave the region after the gulf conflict. The US had no real operational bases in the region and was somewhat reluctant to leave but instead cut back troop levels. Back to Israel for operational bases then. Until the US invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 and the subsequent invasion of Iraq, we may have finally acquired a military footprint in the region. However, we are still tied to Israel financially and militarily.

It is a somewhat symbiotic relationship for these two nations because intelligence is shared and an eye on the happenings in the region is secured. The drawbacks are that the Israeli government used protracted bouts of violence in response to Palestinian terrorist attacks on Israeli soil. To allay these actions, the US must take an initiative in acting as an honest broker in a mutually acceptable peace plan between Israel and the Palestinians. The longer that the current situation lasts, the more likely that a reasonable solution will not be possible in the region. Continual escalation of violence on both sides may eventually lead to a regionwide war. This must be avoided at all costs.

Another reason that we have extended the relationship with Israel partly because of a certain bond we share, ironically, as contemporaries in the fight against domestic terrorism. Herein lies our problem. It is truly a double edged sword because as we support the Israeli government against terrorism, we also promote terrorist activities against our own country. The arabs see this as a friend of their enemy is also their enemy. This is probably even more reason for the US government that they establish a friendly government in Iraq and Afghanistan. They then can achieve their military footprint and start to distance themselves away from Israel and possibly the stigma attached to them and their actions.



*** Sorry for such a long post but if you're going to argue about something, at least understand what the fuck you are arguing about. Then people can make an informed judgement on what they see and hear.

[goliath]

Damn PI...you handed out a nice big can of shut-the-fuck-up. good post!

[checkoutmyrapp]

Wow. does that come in hard cover too. Very informative. My intentions when posting why are country is the way it is today was to point out that we are so worried about hurting everyones feeling all the time and we have to worry about pissing off the UN if we do anything that everything that we do is under a microscope and picketed against.

[Chris]

PI, :agree::agree::agree:.

Chris

[speedracer59]

Every time I see the title to this thread I think of the comic book guy from the Simpsons

[Primal Instinct]

Checkoutmyrapp,

My post was not directed specifically at you in a insulting fashion. I'm sorry if that was how it appeared. I simply feel that many people don't fully understand the implications of actions taken at one point in time and their effects on international relationships in the future.

It is hardly a simple cut and dry issue and to put as "Either you are with us or you are against us" is a truly irresponsible remark made by the leader of the free world. This indeed is troubling because it is clear that he doesn't even have prior knowledge of past events. The Presidency is certainly an awesome reponsibility and the person who weilds that power should forsee and understand the implications of such foolish ultimatums, especially when our country is just as guilty of terrorism and supporting it throughout our nation's history eg., attempted assassinations of diplomatic heads of state (7 seperate attempts on Fidel Castro), covert insurgency warfare (Iran-Contra Scandal, providing WMD to Saddam in Iraq during Iran-Iraq war), etc... It also makes an statements to that effect appear disingenuous, being that we still do that type of thing, albeit covertly. The only people who can't see it is the Americans who are somewhat blinded at times by the guise of patriotism. If you publically question any actions by this current government you are either branded as a liberal, unpatriotic, or both. Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave today.
.