Is Bush Going Insane?

Remove all ads!

After reading several recent news reports on Dubya's latest actions and comments concerning Iraq, I've started to worry that maybe our president is becoming a bit unstable. Despite knowing that Iraq has chemical, if not nuclear, weapons at its disposal, he's backing Saddam into a corner and leaving him with little choice but to use his toys. Not only that, but despite the concuring advice of every one of his generals, including Sec. Powell, he's provoking the U.N. and giving the anti-counterstrikers a firm foothold. France and Germany, both of which are (IIRC) on the Security Council, are against any offensive actions against Iraq, and I doubt they're the only ones. Few people in the U.S. even know of the trouble he's causing, and even less support it. And as for China, the only remaining major Communist state in the world, and therefore our traditional enemies...does anyone even remember they're still there, and heavily armed?

Basically, Bush is pissing off everyone in the world, including his own citizenry. I'm worried that he's going to get the U.S. into a third World War, and this time with us as the bad guys. I think what we need to do is send a large group of average, middle- and lower-class Americans over to the United Nations building, wielding signs that read "Don't Hate Us 'Cause Our President's Nucking Futz." As a citizen in one of the most obvious places to drop a nuke or chemical warhead (namely, central California, one of the largest food suppliers in the U.S), I'd rather not be killed because our idiot leader abused his power and picked a fight his people didn't want.

And just so the Brits and other Europeans who frequent this board know, the only people who support Bush's genocidal actions don't actually know what's going on. You can't get mad at ignorance, or so the saying goes. So if your countries decide to blow up ours, please, ask them to aim for Dubya, not the innocent people who didn't know better.

Eh, that's my heretical two cents. Next?

 

In the news recently:
The democrats are now accusing Bush of putting "political motivations" ahead of the safety of welfare of US citizens. Even some republicans are criticizing him. Bush is rapidly losing support for his war. Even a month ago, I think many people would have supported it, but as more and more opposition from other countries makes the headlines, many people are having second thoughts.

It's no longer "The US vs. Iraq", it is becoming "Bush and the US military vs. Iraq". Even Gore (Clinton's VP) is attacking Bush. But all Bill Clinton has to say is "I did not have sex with THAT woman!"

[ September 27, 2002, 02:25: Message edited by: Nutrimat ]

 

In Whatnots recently (just page 2 in fact):

Another topic discussing Bush's sanity

I'm only pointing this out because it's a well established topic (4 pages) and deals with this topic.

It's sad times in America when we have to choose between presidents who can't keep their pants zipped up and presidents who probably have their pants zipped too tight.

[ September 27, 2002, 02:38: Message edited by: Big B ]

 

Ack, didn't see that topic. Sorry

 

I'm not even sure where to begin, I'm tempted not to.

Balance. A lot of the claims recently regarding Bush are not balanced. For example, I remember perusing the "Bush is a Moron" post where people really seemed to honestly believe the Ivy League succesful business man sucessful politician was a moron. I understand not liking his policies, but please, remain rational and strive for some balance.

First, there is the claim, at least the implication that Americans are against action in Iraq. According to a September 19, 2002 Gallup poll, 57% of Americans favor military action in Iraq.

Second, there is the claim that the people who do favor military action are ignorant or just plain stupid. Balance. With a number of Anti-American posters here this is really opening myself up, but I'll go ahead: do you really want to make the claim that 57% of Americans are ignorant or stupid? Isn't it possible, just possible, that your point of view isn't overwhelmingly obvious, and indeed, there might even be legitimate reasons to support military action in Iraq?

Third, what war on Iraq? Did I miss something? Someone with no idea what is happening would think that the U.S. has its troops deployed and ready to strike while the rest of the world begs us to let poor old Mr. Hussein live peacefully in his neighborhood. To this point, there is no war. There is continued skirmishes along the no fly zone, but if this is what you mean, don't lay that at the feet of this Bush, it's been going on since the last Gulf War. Yes, even during the Clinton administration. Thus far, nothing much new other than sabre rattling.

The implication here and elsewhere is that Bush has decided on unilateral action. Balance. He hasn't said he wants unilateral action only that he is willing to take it. Sabre rattling. Meanwhile, Rumsfeld and some higher ups in the CIA either yesterday or the day before were in Europe presenting evidence tying al-Qaida and Iraq. Meanwhile Bush has addressed the U.N. and at least forced Iraq to allow weapon inspectors to return, oh wait, that was a minute ago, Hussein put forth a new restriction -- shocking. Meanwhile a joint resolution originating from the U.S. and U.K. has been drafted and negotiations with other key U.N. members has begun. Powell, who Bush is apparently an idiot for ignoring, is leading these negotiations and was quoted as saying: "This time, unlike any time over the previous 12 years of Iraqi defiance, there must be hard consequences."

It's election time. It's an important election. It helps the democrats if Americans start having a less favorable impression of potential military action. Daschle's words are stunning in this context. More stunning is the fact that Gore, a high ranking democrat who is positioning himself for another possible run at the Presidency would criticize the current President he would have to run against. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are firmly against the President's bloodthirstiness. Balance. Meanwhile today a bipartisan draft resolution began to be circulated in Congress authorizing the use of force should further diplomatic efforts fail. Balance.

Balance. That's all I'll ask for here. There are legitimate reasons to wish military action and legitimate reasons to not. If you can't acknowledge that, then you're not being rational in my opinion. The question is more nuanced than that as well. Should there be any military action and if so of what type? An inside out campagin? Complete deployment of a traditional sort?

By the way, I voted for Nader. I'm not a Bush proponent and I am only hesitantly in favor of some type of military action in Iraq (not unlike Powell, Kissinger, etc who are all apparently ignorant as well.) I just wanted to speak early in what I know will be another round of: "they're all stupid, arrogant, ignorant etc."

I will go ahead and say I feel rather confident about two things: (1) There will be NO military action in Iraq without Congressional approval. (2) There will be NO military action in Iraq taken by the U.S. unilaterally. Politicians are politicians and during the election season say things for, well, political reasons. Sabre rattling is effective. Ask the Germans who reelected Schroeder recently primarily because he and his company were so obnoxiously rattling their sabres at the U.S. (shortly after his election, the German in his group who referred to Bush as Hitler was forced to step down and the Germans have begun to make peace overtures to the U.S. yesterday voulunteering to take over for Turkey in running the peace keeping troops in Afghanistan.)

[ September 27, 2002, 03:12: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Well stated and thought-out. However, I'd like to refute one point, and leave the rest for others.

"Second, there is the claim that the people who do favor military action are ignorant or just plain stupid. Balance. With a number of Anti-American posters here this is really opening myself up, but I'll go ahead: do you really want to make the claim that 57% of Americans are ignorant or stupid? Isn't it possible, just possible, that your point of view isn't overwhelmingly obvious, and indeed, there might even be legitimate reasons to support military action in Iraq?"

Yes, it is possible that my point of view is obvious, and that there may well be reasons to blow up Iraq. However, I do not see how the reasons *to* attack compare to the reasons not to. If we attack, what point is there in Saddam holding back his weapons? How many innocent people will die just because Dubya wants to finish his dad's work? Not Americans -- the likelyhood of Hussein having anything that can reach our shores is unlikely. But, as was mentioned elsewhere, Israelies, innocent, non-terrorist Middle Easterners, Europeans. Secondly, what *real* reason is there for attacking Saddam? He hasn't been hurting anyone lately, save his own people. So, there are Al Queda members in Iraq. If we're going to bomb every country "harboring" terrorists, we may as well just nuke everyone and get it over with. Ireland has the IRA...let's bomb them! Russia still has anti-American former KGBs...let's bomb them! North Dakota has a couple of militant revolutionary groups...let's bomb them!

Secondly, yes, I do believe 57% of Americans are ignorant, at least to the big picture. I'm not a professional psychologist, but I've read enough to know that most people don't really give any thought to consequences, especially not if the consequences won't directly affect them. So Saddam can start a plague in the Middle East? Eh, those camel-jockeys are all terrorists anyway!

Call me bitter, cynical, or irrational. I agnowledge your viewpoint(s), and that maybe there are legitimate reasons for a war with Iraq. But I still maintain that anyone who would willingly launch such a campaign is either ignorant or insane. As for the whole saber-rattling thing, wouldn't Bush knock it off when he realized it was *costing* him votes? Maybe there are polls showing how his apparent insanity is helping his popularity, and if so, it just further proves how ignorant most Americans are.

Or, maybe this is just some overblown dick-sizing contest, with Bush trying to show the world how much meat he has. If so, then hell, there's nothing to worry about and we'll all be okay. If not, and we end up in the middle of World War 3, I'm gonna have fun saying "I told you so!"

 

Yes, that's all nice, but the Bush is not attacking Iraq because he likes their neighbours (Kuwait) or because Saddam is so dangerous. What happens there is not Americas business. He's doing it because of oil. And that's it. Oil.
BTW, Blair said that Saddam can put his chemical and biological weapons to use in 5 minutes. Why the hell would you wanna to attack him and provoke him???? If he's ever gonna used them it's gonna be in that situation.

 

I don't understand why people fail to understand basic geography. US does not need the Iraqi oil. Get it. What puzzles me is that even though it has been explained in details, (especially by both Shralp and BTA), some people still don't get it. Its kinda scary.

Corr why not accept or be happy that you can actually learn something from other people's explanations and experiences? I am at a loss.

 

I'm not going to get too involved in this topic, its much too irritating. I would just like to point at that "57% of American's supporting action" is complete BS. What you mean to say is, 57% of the American's *polled* support action against Iraq.

Big difference.

Quite frankly to the rest of it, I haven't heard one good reason the US should invade.

 

1. Everybody gets so tense about Hussein building nukies but Im pretty sure that he aint that dumb.
Cause he knows that if he just fires one shot of his AK-47 over the border with Koeweit that Iraq will be reduced to a nuclear moshpit

2. Anybody heard that story of the connection between Al-sumthingsumthing and Iraq.
Well some prisoners (who are still held as POW´s even though America cant charge them of anything) were forced to say that Iraq taught the "Bin Laden Boys" how the make B/C weapons.

Big coincidence since the news came out when America was looking for a good excuse to nuke Iraq

That's my anti-American-government two cents

 

"Loyalty to my country always, loyalty to my government when it deserves it." Mark Twain

 

Personnaly it is all about oil. bush needs oil irag has oil, and bush has some reasons to attack iraq. once iraq is defeated us will try to gets its hands on iraqs oil

 

Thorin, just out of interest, why does Bush need oil when he has plenty already?

 

Wildfire: Bush has made it clear several times that he wants the US to remain self-sufficient in regards to energy. US consumption of oil is through the roof and they're basically slaves to OPEC because of this. Gaining control over Iraq is excellent for the US government; it will give them another foothold in the Middle East and therefore more control over oil production in the area.

 

USA does not want access to iraqi oil in for its own needs. USA wants iraqi oil because:
a) It (I mean the oil industries) can make profit out of it.
b) The country, which controls oil production and distribution, has the ability to "blackmail" other countries.

 

They are not attacking for oil! They are attacking to keep the war on terror going, which I think is a very worthy cause. America and Britain should show those scum who's boss.

 

Z-Layrex:

Starting a war in order to simply "keep another going" is not a very worthy cause, in my opinion.

 

Z-Layrex:
There is not a proof that Saddam is related with Osama Bin Laden. Also, Saddam,even if he has nuclear weapons, does not have the capability to bomb USA or UK, therefore this attack has nothing to do with the war against terrorism.Also, if the British goverment wants to attack a country, which officialy or unofficialy supports terrorists groups, why does it not attack Ireland? The majority of Irish people support IRA.

Also, Bush has said that North Korea belongs to the "evil alliance", so why USA and UK do not attack North Korea? Maybe because, if they dare to do this, they will have to face Chinese army?

Finally, does the fact ,that even Kuweit has denied to allow to USA to use its ground, tell you something about the real motives of this war?

 

I can't believe the amount of crap that people come up with. America is not attacking for oil. If you believe otherwise, you are simply blinding yourself with your dislike for America. Think about. I mean really think about it. It makes no sense. Shralp and others have shown why-but of course, their posts are disregarded. Just as this one will be. Why do I even bother?

and if you look closely, you'll notice that iraq has NOT been attacked yet. And yes, Iraq has taken action against America. Early 90s, there was an Iraqi backed plot to crash approximately 10(!) planes or so into assorted targets. Fortunately for us, CIA/FBI cracked it wide open. But, since Clinton was in charge, no action was taken in reply, and it was kept quiet (source for this=Newsweek. I can try to dig up the issue if you like). Kinda like Saddam's attempted assasination of Bush Sr. But you're right, he's been minding his own business all along.