...And so began the Iraqi Civil War

Remove all ads!

You're telling me that there is no way to remove him until he has finished his term?

 

@Morgoth - Technically, yes, he can be removed from office. Reality - not very likely at all. The only way to remove a president from office (other than him dying obviously) is if he is impeached, which would require him to do something obviously illegal. Something that's borderline illegal (like wire tapping) isn't going to cut it, because to be impeached you need to go through the Senate. Since the senate is currently controlled by the same party as the President, it isn't going to happen. So, in all likelihood, barring his death, Bush will be president through January of 2009.

 

Hmmm...unless Bush commits adultry and lies about it, but he wouldn't do that, o no. He *found* Jesus.

 

Yes, he was under Karl Rove's couch the whole time. Who knew?

 

Yes, Tal put it right. "I told you so." isn't very pleasurable, looking over a landscape of ruins and bodies. And we tortured, like the Stalinists and the Nazis. I don't believe there's a blacker chapter in American history.

Mark Twain wrote a short story, "The Recent Carnival of Crime in Connecticut", about a man who killed his conscience and then filled his cellar with dead bodies. Perhaps he knew something about us that we'd rather not look at.

 

As most of all of you know, I'm no supporter of Bush or the war -- never was. But to make a statement like this is plain silly:

I noted that the "high school students" was highlighted. Do you really believe it's as simple as what you've stated? Regardless of the outcome of what happened, I think it's quite inane to imply that high school students or ANYBODY (EVEN SPers) with no political/military experience, etc. would be so in tune with world economics or that country's history that they would see the "obvious" solution and those who have spent their lives in such areas, just didn't "see it". Come on.

People love to point the finger with the "I told you so." In fact, I would wager that ANY action the US took regarding Iraq would be criticized (and I probably would be leading the pack). People love to jump on the bandwagon and see themselves as the great gurus who "knew it all along". It's human nature. Unfortunately, the situation isn't as simple as you imply.

 

No...coming up with a solution is only a part of it (and we've all heard many recipes here on SP). I got your point....you think that predicting the outcome was a no-brainer (for everyone outside the US, that is). Interesting. You missed my point though, of stating that Bush and his team would have been criticized no matter WHAT course of action they chose, given his reputation. It really didn't matter what it was, I don't think.

 

"Accurate predictions" ....sure....accurate predictions based on a pinky finger's amount of information going into the decisions that produced the result. It's easy to foretell a result when you have limited inputs. "Yea! 1+1=2! Why couldn't THEY see it!" You can't really think that the facts and inputs that we heard in the news were the only facts and knowledge that they were faced with?? Yes, the result is what it is.....but the process to get there was hardly as simple as you make it out to be.

 

Sorry if I was unclear, Spellbound. I wasn't saying that high school students, SPers, ect. had come up with plans of how to handle the situation in Iraq that trained government/military officials had not. I was trying, instead, to point out that it is sad that so many untrained people had realized, via common sense, how stupid it was to invade Iraq, and had realised that invading would result in a huge mess, whereas our government officials seem to either lack the common sense to have realised this, or had some less alturistic, less repectable reason behind the invasion.

 

The lessons of history are fairly apparent for anyone who is willing to gain a historical perspective on the idea of "limited war." Vietnam is an excellent example that was there for the scrutiny. Yet, it would seem that we have a president who had little use for a scholarly approach to policy. As a result, the lessons of history are doomed to repeat themselves for those are not willing to take them a bit more seriously.

There were those in positions of power, and many of us (average Joes) who were able to surmise that this may not be such a good idea, and who advised against the invasion of Iraq - at the time it all started. Instead, they/we were ignored, had their/our patriotism questioned, were accused of being "Saddam lovers," and being "soft on terror." Now, that things have turned out much as they predicted, there is a chorus of, "who could have guessed?" Ah, well - sorry, but much like the Katrina situation, the incompetence and arrogance of those who were so ineffective in managing such things are now apparent. Yes, the emperor really has no clothes after all.

 

The real question is was this all a "screw up" by incompetents in the Bush administration or did they see this all coming and is the result they wanted all along?

Bush, I'll grant you, is an idiot, but Rice, Rove and the rest of those cronies are smart. They know how the world works. They know all about the 700 years of conflict between Shiites and Sunnis.

They also know how much money they and their country club-set friends stand to make from a war-without-end. They know how much power they have to gain. They know instability in the Middle East gives Big Oil an excuse to raise prices. They know unstable Arab nations gives Israel a stronger foothold.

All conspiracy theories aside, at the end of the day just look at who has gotten richer since the war began. And look at who has gotten poorer, and whose children are coming home in body bags (both Iraqi and American). Meanwhile, the Bush twins are living it up in Hollywood at some pre-Oscar party...

 

Now THAT'S a frightening question...

I'd vote no, as I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but if it were the opposite, I'd be very, very scared.

 

Sir Fink - I don't think it's quite that organised... at least, I hope it's not. Good points, though - at the end of the day, it's the poor who are fighting, bleeding and dying. Thankfully, it seems more and more people are seeing through the "war without end" BS.

That said, I really hope I'm wrong about this (and most of the rest of you, too), because I would rather see something good come out of the whole invasion shemozzle. Here's hoping something like peace and stability can be forged out of this crucible, and not for anyone outside of Iraq's sake. Sure, it would mean a bunch of hawks braying about how successful the idea was, but even the most militant would baulk at attempting to repeat the experiment (not to mention the probable political and public responses to the very idea of another pre-emptive war).

 

In these troubling times it is getting harder and harder to figure out who to believe. I'm not saying this guy is accurate, but it is troubling to see such wildly different points of view and how quickly people are willing to latch on to only one view.

Enjoy.
DUDE, WHERE'S MY CIVIL WAR?

 

W also made stops in Pakistan and India on the trip. One of the quotes that Bush made regarding Pakistan was: "Pakistan is a shining example of freedom and democracy to the Arab world."

When I heard that, the first thing that went through my mind was, "Technically, the people of Pakistan aren't "free" from a Western society's perspective." Then, in a talk show I saw they brought up another point - not only is Pakistan not free, but they aren't even Arabs.

Later, on W's trip to India, he got half-way through referring to the people of India as "Native Americans" before correcting himself.

THIS is the intellect we are dealing with here. How can anyone be surprised at the outcome?

 

Yes! Blame the North-East Coast Limousine Liberal Urban Elites! Never fails.

 

And in one simple sentence an entire arguement/point of view can be dismissed. Bravo!