George W. Bush faces impeachment

[Odale]

Saddam used chemical and biological weapons against Iraqi citizens in the late 1980's.

His. Own. People.

Saddam committed genocide. How is it possible that people think it was not a good idea to remove him from power after everything he's done? It should have been done 15 years ago after he invaded Kuwait.... when we had the chance the first time.

We should have finished the job then, I agree. But also, since we have usurped his power, country and people, we should have been prepared to deal with them properly too. Since we were not prepared to deal with them, look now. Their cities are like something out of a Resident Evil flick, where something on every street wants you dead for some reason or another. Yes, many Iraqi's have died in the past, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he performed Genocide, but look at how many of our people and their people have died since the war started. Tell me which is better.

I know I'm cutting a short quote, and I hope that I don't take your post out of context (nor any future readers, either). I can't remember exactly who told me, but it was someone I work with that had a close family member currently serving in Iraq. The statement was that nearly every house they raided that contained insurgents also contained large amounts of pornography... yet those same people would condemn the average person on the street to death for being caught with a single lewd photograph. They obviously can't handle tolerance or equality, either. They kill because they've been given false promises and directives from zealots.

That would be where education comes in. (Ideally if we had the humanitarian support from the get-go and could have prevented the explosion, the breeding ground for insurgents that we all now know as Iraq.)

 

[Avesther]

Education is a good idea. As a matter of fact, it is such a good idea that tyranical leaders don't allow their populace to become educated. How are you going to get into nations like Iran or China where the populace has been so indoctronated in their way of life that what ever you teach them is heracy?

but look at how many of our people and their people have died since the war started. Tell me which is better.

6 years of war and how many thousands. Again perspecitve, 5 years of WWII and 50,000,000 thats 10,000,000 a year.

 

[Tek7]

Hot thread, hot thread.

I suppose we moderators should keep an eye on this one.

/me glances sideways at Kidan and Logos

 

[vibrokatana]

Hot thread, hot thread.

I suppose we moderators should keep an eye on this one.

/me glances sideways at Kidan and Logos

/me tosses a cookie at tek

 

[Zazzy]

To clear a common thought on the US Gov

I think a lot of people get the impression that gasoline prices are high and that it's President Bush's or the government's doing. But I'm sure Avesther up there in Canada is paying a lot for his gas too.


It's not just the U.S. that has high gas prices. A lot of countries have low gas prices. But they are usually an oil producing country. But many have it way worse than we do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_prices

 

[Baddwin]

Their cities are like something out of a Resident Evil flick, where something on every street wants you dead for some reason or another.

OK, now you're just getting dramatic, oh beloved BD4L.

True, Iraq is still a dangerous place. Also true, there has been VAST improvement over the past several months. When even Bush's political opponents are grudgingly forced to admit that the surge accomplished its goals, you know that things are on an upward swing. The fact is that the death toll in Iraq last month was the lowest we've seen since 2003, I believe. The fact is that Fallujah, Ramadi, and other Sunni strongholds that were a battleground over the past few years are now some of the safest places in the country. The fact is that we're getting tremendous intelligence and support from Sunnis in Iraq - the same Sunnis that were hardcore Saddam supporters when this all started. They are realizing that we're not there to steal their oil, and our troops have demonstrated that we're not monsters. Their co-religionist extremists, on the other hand, have demonstrated that they don't care who they kill or maim as long as they can cause pain and suffering. Far more Muslims have been killed by AQI and their cronies than westerners, and the locals don't like it. They seem to be realizing that their best hope for a peaceful, prosperous future doesn't lie with the jihadis. And they are turning on them with a vengeance.

Now, there's still a long way to go before Iraq is truly stable and secure, but remarkable progress is being made as we speak, and this has been going on for quite a while. But anyone who truly thought that this would be a quick 'in and out, get the job done, introduce democracy in 2 years' kind of experience is either insanely optimistic or tragically shortsighted. And anyone who thinks that the Middle East 'isn't ready for democracy' sells these people short, in my opinion. They're not stupid. Now that they've seen what democracy has to offer, most of them want that future for themselves and their children. Will there be growing pains? Of course. Look at our own history to see that. But, are they capable of introducing hope in a part of the world that has seen far too little of it? Most of our people who are actually there answer with an emphatic yes.

 

[Baddwin]

Yes, many Iraqi's have died in the past, and there is no doubt in anyone's mind that he performed Genocide, but look at how many of our people and their people have died since the war started. Tell me which is better.

Which is better? Over the course of his dictatorship, Sadaam killed somewhere on the order of a million of his own people. Taking into account his well accounted genocide of his own Kurdish and Marsh Arab populations; a stupid, short-sighted, and wasteful war with Iran; Uday and Qusay's rape rooms; torture chambers; the murder of political opponents and brutalization of their families; and the ultimate authority of the Baathists to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted, I'm note sure that you really want to boil this down to pure numbers.

Yes, we have lost a few thousand soldiers in this war, and every single one of those losses is a tragedy. Yes, Iraqis have been killed, too. Most reputable estimates that I've seen estimate that to be in the range of 60,000 or so (those numbers may be a bit dated, but they should be relatively close). However, a large percentage of those were killed by the Muslim extremists, and those losses are rapidly declining. I hate to sound callous and reduce lost lives to pure calculus, but when you account for what Saddam isn't doing anymore, I wouldn't really step out on that branch of 'which is better?' I know which answer I'd give.

 

[Glitch]

how much of a case does this guy have? you guys think?

 

[Durruck]

Seeing that Kusinich already got shot down once by Pelosi, who stands against everything Bush does, I'd wager not much. Nobody wants to deal with the mess. Bush may be one of the least popular presidents, but enough of the intel inquiries came back to appease a great deal of both parties in Congress.

 

[Odale]

Education is a good idea. As a matter of fact, it is such a good idea that tyranical leaders don't allow their populace to become educated. How are you going to get into nations like Iran or China where the populace has been so indoctronated in their way of life that what ever you teach them is heracy?

It has been made absurdly difficult now, because we did not allow ourselves to be properly prepared in the beginning. The key is to be prepared, and not rush into anything:

That would be where education comes in. (Ideally if we had the humanitarian support from the get-go and could have prevented the explosion, the breeding ground for insurgents that we all now know as Iraq.)

6 years of war and how many thousands. Again perspecitve, 5 years of WWII and 50,000,000 thats 10,000,000 a year.

That is inaccurate. From Wikipedia:

Since 1945, the most commonly cited figure for the total number of Jews killed has been six million. The Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, writes that there is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed. The figure most commonly used is the six million cited by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official.Raul Hilberg, to 5.95 million from Jacob Leschinsky. Yisrael Gutman and Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust estimate 5.59–5.86 million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million from [30] A study led by Wolfgang Benz of the Technical University of Berlin suggests 5.29–6.2 million.[31][32]Yad Vashem writes that the main sources for these statistics are comparisons of prewar and postwar censuses and population estimates, and Nazi documentation on deportations and murders. Yad Vashem reports that it has the names of four million of the victims.[31]
...
According to Michael Berenbaum, between two and three million Soviet prisoners-of-war—57 percent of all Soviet POWs—died of starvation, mistreatment, or executions between June 1941 and May 1945, most of them during their first year of captivity.
...
In the Balkans, up to 500,000 Serbs were killed in Yugoslavia[67][68]. Hitler's high plenipotentiary in South East Europe, Hermann Neubacher, later wrote: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs (including babies, children, women and old men) were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. On the basis of reports I received, I estimated that threequarters of a million defenceless people were slaughtered."[69]
...
Between 1939 and 1941, 80,000 to 100,000 mentally ill adults in institutions were killed; 5,000 children in institutions; and 1,000 Jews in institutions.[95] Outside the mental health institutions, the figures are estimated as 20,000 (according to Dr. Georg Renno, the deputy director of Schloss Hartheim, one of the euthanasia centers) or 400,000 (according to Frank Zeireis, the commandant of Mauthausen concentration camp).[95] Another 300,000 were forcibly sterilized.
...
Between 2,500 and 5,000 [Jehovah's Witnesses] were killed.
...

The reason I do that is because Stalin killed more of his own people (in the neighborhood of 25-30 million) than Hitler (around 14 or 15 million). I am not saying that Stalin and Hitler were great guys, though... just pointing that out. Saddam is only in the neighborhood of half a million. Mao Ze-Dong holds the highest number of people killed between 49 to 78 million...

OK, now you're just getting dramatic, oh beloved BD4L.

I don't think so. Would you like to live there and operate normal, daily activities there? For the record I was primarily thinking of Baghdad.

True, Iraq is still a dangerous place. Also true, there has been VAST improvement over the past several months. When even Bush's political opponents are grudgingly forced to admit that the surge accomplished its goals, you know that things are on an upward swing. The fact is that the death toll in Iraq last month was the lowest we've seen since 2003, I believe. The fact is that Fallujah, Ramadi, and other Sunni strongholds that were a battleground over the past few years are now some of the safest places in the country. The fact is that we're getting tremendous intelligence and support from Sunnis in Iraq - the same Sunnis that were hardcore Saddam supporters when this all started. They are realizing that we're not there to steal their oil, and our troops have demonstrated that we're not monsters. Their co-religionist extremists, on the other hand, have demonstrated that they don't care who they kill or maim as long as they can cause pain and suffering. Far more Muslims have been killed by AQI and their cronies than westerners, and the locals don't like it. They seem to be realizing that their best hope for a peaceful, prosperous future doesn't lie with the jihadis. And they are turning on them with a vengeance.

You have to realize that before the war, Iraq had one of the strongest economies in the region, and it was one of the only nations over there that little terrorism in it. Now look, it has almost no economy. The defamation of Iraq's economy was not a prerequisite to catching Bin Laden. Should we have supported Saddam? Absolutely not. Should we wreck their country? No.

Now, there's still a long way to go before Iraq is truly stable and secure, but remarkable progress is being made as we speak, and this has been going on for quite a while. But anyone who truly thought that this would be a quick 'in and out, get the job done, introduce democracy in 2 years' kind of experience is either insanely optimistic or tragically shortsighted. And anyone who thinks that the Middle East 'isn't ready for democracy' sells these people short, in my opinion. They're not stupid. Now that they've seen what democracy has to offer, most of them want that future for themselves and their children. Will there be growing pains? Of course. Look at our own history to see that. But, are they capable of introducing hope in a part of the world that has seen far too little of it? Most of our people who are actually there answer with an emphatic yes.

It would have been much easier to convince them we are not monsters if we had not for profit organizations in there in the first place, like the Red Cross.. etc in there giving aid to the people who needed it while the invasion was taking place. Human aid is not a radical idea, why it took so long is mind-blowing to think about.

Which is better? Over the course of his dictatorship, Sadaam killed somewhere on the order of a million of his own people. Taking into account his well accounted genocide of his own Kurdish and Marsh Arab populations; a stupid, short-sighted, and wasteful war with Iran; Uday and Qusay's rape rooms; torture chambers; the murder of political opponents and brutalization of their families; and the ultimate authority of the Baathists to do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted, I'm note sure that you really want to boil this down to pure numbers.

Yes, we have lost a few thousand soldiers in this war, and every single one of those losses is a tragedy. Yes, Iraqis have been killed, too. Most reputable estimates that I've seen estimate that to be in the range of 60,000 or so (those numbers may be a bit dated, but they should be relatively close). However, a large percentage of those were killed by the Muslim extremists, and those losses are rapidly declining. I hate to sound callous and reduce lost lives to pure calculus, but when you account for what Saddam isn't doing anymore, I wouldn't really step out on that branch of 'which is better?' I know which answer I'd give.

Saddam was a horrible person, no one would doubt that. But look, the U.S. is the world's "flagship" nation. We simply are the best. So why would we go about a war so carelessly? I am not simply comparing numbers, you cannot truly compare what one man did over 20 or so years to a war that's only been going on for 5. It is not fair. But, we, U.S. citizens should expect higher of our nation's leaders.

As a side note, I am not knocking the men and women who have put their lives in front of the rest of ours. I admire their courage and pray for them daily. I am simply questioning the population that has been appointed to run this war, not the population out on the battle field.

 

[Baddwin]

That is inaccurate. From Wikipedia:

I didn't see GP reference Hitler's extermination machine anywhere, I think he was referring to ALL losses in WWII. If you include losses in combat, civilian populations decimated, etc, you'll reach a number close to what he quoted.

You have to realize that before the war, Iraq had one of the strongest economies in the region, and it was one of the only nations over there that little terrorism in it.

See, I'd argue that it had an endemic system of state sponsored terrorism levied against significant portions of its population. I referenced it in my earlier post. Genocide, rape rooms, and so on. If you'd fallen out of favor with Saddam or his goons you were summarily arrested, your family rounded up, and then you got to watch them absolutely brutalize and then murder your family before your eyes before you were run through the shredder.

Doesn't sound to me like the happy place that you make it out to be.

But look, the U.S. is the world's "flagship" nation. We simply are the best. So why would we go about a war so carelessly?

You've implied this a few times, but what do you actually base it on? Can you give me concrete examples or cite sources? Careless in what way? Did you honestly expect us to just walk in and the terrorists to give up? Are there specific things that you think that the administration should have done that would have been more effective? Again, for the record, I don't think that the running of the war has been flawless, by any stretch of the imagination, but I hear an awful lot of people spout the "Bush sucks" mantra without really being able to verbalize why they think that's the case other than that they heard it on CNN.

 

[vibrokatana]

The US spends a HUGE amount of money on the military (which is mostly a side effect of the post WW2 and cold war era). We have one of the most powerful millitarys in the world yet a president can decide on a whim if he wants to attack a country. The checks and balances in the government are failing IMO. The judicial branch is making laws when they are only supposed to interpret them. Congress is not keeping the president in check, they would rather continue to profit from the war (if congress actually care about the people we would already be out). And a number of bills going against the constitution and notably the bill of rights are passed.

As it is going, in the next few years a executive/military coup would be staggeringly easy. The government is far to top heavy to be able to resist a central takeover (once congress goes then the entire country will be right behind). Whereas under the old system where the states had much more power then they could fight against the coup. States don't even have a native militia anymore. It is all centralized under the feds.

 

[Odale]

...You've implied this a few times, but what do you actually base it on? Can you give me concrete examples or cite sources? Careless in what way? Did you honestly expect us to just walk in and the terrorists to give up? Are there specific things that you think that the administration should have done that would have been more effective? Again, for the record, I don't think that the running of the war has been flawless, by any stretch of the imagination, but I hear an awful lot of people spout the "Bush sucks" mantra without really being able to verbalize why they think that's the case other than that they heard it on CNN.

I don't watch CNN. I read Time Magazine and watch PBA 30: Frontline specials are cool. I was comparing dictators to other dictators. WWII was horrendous, it involved more countries and civilians.

From a Time Magazine article from February 21, 2008:

The current U.N. mission in Baghdad is tiny. Their cramped offices are located at the end of a series of concrete and razor-wire-lined streets in the Green Zone, accessed through Fijian, Peruvian and Ugandan checkpoints. Meanwhile, UNICEF, the U.N.'s children's aid organization, is the most conspicuously absent. Others, such as the World Health Organization, UNHCR (the U.N.'s refugee agency) and the U.N. Development Programme have between zero and three people in Baghdad at any given time.

...
​

Ferati argues that the U.S. military surge may improve security, but that if there is no parallel surge in humanitarian efforts to improve the lives of the vast majority of ordinary Iraqis, all will be for naught. "If we want to see the current improvement in security for long term, we need to immediately increase access services to Iraqi citizens," says Ferati. "They need to see a tangible difference — they need something they are willing to fight for — clinics, schools, jobs. The military is not and should not be there to develop the community. There should be an NGO surge to take up community development and empower communities so that they can lead the changes at the grassroots level and also help the ministries improve and help [implement] the changes." But so far, most aid agencies are too frightened to help.

PBS Frontline focus on Bush, Cheney and the War - Bush's War.

It is very interesting to watch, and what makes it even more interesting is that PBS gets most of their funding from their viewers (hence the "This show was funded by [companies go here] And Viewers like you, Thank You.") That makes for balanced news and balanced shows.

 

[Bonk!Ow!]

That makes for balanced news and balanced shows.

Um, no it doesn't. It doesn't at all.

 

[Odale]

By getting most of their funding from viewers, they do not have to listen to corporations and, thus, they do not have to portray the news in a certain light.

All news is bias, I will give you that. It's just that some news stations are less bias than others.

 

[vibrokatana]

By getting most of their funding from viewers, they do not have to listen to corporations and, thus, they do not have to portray the news in a certain light.

All news is bias, I will give you that. It's just that some news stations are less bias than others.

Unless a third party is reporting on each and every "donation" then you can hardly trust a company. You have to realize that corporations regularly "scratch" each others back for favours. Even if it isn't a money transfer they are still benefiting more from biased parties then consumers.

 

[Bonk!Ow!]

By getting most of their funding from viewers, they do not have to listen to corporations and, thus, they do not have to portray the news in a certain light.

All news is bias, I will give you that. It's just that some news stations are less bias than others.

I daresay I disagree. Fox or CNN isn't going to be more biased on, say, Bush's impeachment because Wal Mart and The Home Depot and Frito-Lay frown on certain views while PBS has these unbiased reporters getting funded by the little people.

 

[Bowser]

We can't leave Iraq now that we're already in it. The death toll for Iraqi civilians there is already catastrophic, and leaving would only make it worse.

I'm not going to debate whether we should have entered the war or not. No one could have ever anticipated what the war would have led to.

However, as the 'Flagship' nation that we are, as stated by Odale, it would be one of our country's biggest mistakes to simply back out now.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/A3FE0336-5662-46EB-9B83-10F8D6DB0803.htm - This guy sounds just crazy.