I'm not really sure one can put a percentage to it, For example how many points you want to give to the iraq war, how many for "Getmo", how many for "The Patriot Act", etc, etc.
Oh please ... let a decade pass by and people will understand what George Bush was to US. His presidency will be defined by 9/11 and what his reactions were. Middle East and its being pro-American will define how US is defined in a decade ... we'll see how next few years go. Iraq was not a mistake in my opinion. I have the right to my opinion ... 1st amendment is kind of a known thing up here. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Rick
Nixon was a great politician, don't get me wrong, he made some wrong choices over the course of his political career. JFK is known to be a great president, for what? Cuban missile crisis or for sex scandals ... You ever watch House? (the TV Show on Fox), EVERYBODY Lies, some get caught while lying and some don't. Rick
Lieing was not Buchanan problem nor was it Madison or Jacksons: their problems were making decisions that cost the nation dearly for years even decades later.
first, comparing Bush to nixon is naive, second; Bush policy is why you can stand safely on the ground today without worrying too much about 9/11 kinda things ... As I am saying, we'll see how it turns out. Don't be such a baby is what i am saying, this kinda thing happened in Vietnam, Had it not been public pressure to pull out, US would have won Vietnam; British did it ... Terrorism is the new communism, just pick your sides. Rick
That's bullshit. 9/11 kinda things don't happen all the time. How many years since the first WTC bombing under Clinton did it take for 9/11 to come around? And gee, with Bush's oh-so-great policy of keeping us safe by creating more terrorists, what is this we keep hearing from his staff about another 9/11-type attack happening soon? Pretty much the same time frame between the first WTC bombing under Clinton till 9/11. Now 9/11 to the next attack under Bush's policy. Seems like they're pretty even at keeping us safe. Terrorism that happens on our soil is a law enforcement issue. Law enforcement is the only thing that will stop it. An army wouldn't have stopped 9/11 and having an army overseas sure as hell won't stop the next 9/11. Law enforcement is what kept us safe and finally failed under Clinton and it's what's keeping us safe now under Bush and will eventually fail as well, not some overseas Bush Doctrine or Homeland Security Gestapo. Remember the shoe bomber? Or those shampoo assembly bomb guys? Law enforcement, not military power, stopped that. The only thing our military power helped do is secure a couple cities, test new technology, get rid of old weapons, and piss a lot of people off, that's it. We still can't secure anything to build new oil and gas pipelines. The Bush Doctrine is an illogical fallacy. Destroy their infrastructure? They have no infrastructure out in the boonies. They get most of their money and brainwashed religious nuts from Saudi Arabia and we sure as heck aren't doing a thing about that. Oh yeah, and the heroin fields in Afghanistan, that helps em too, and guess what? After we invaded Afghanistan, their production increased by a shitload. And when you kill one terrorist, you create more. When a bomb, missile, or rocket goes off accidentally in someone's house and kills a kid, you just created a whole family or even village of terrorists wanting vengeance. So far all the Bush Doctrine has done is ignored the most important things in regards to terrorist finances with Saudi Arabia, increased their and our drug money thanks to invading Afghanistan, and created more terrorists through the simple act of war when civilians die. Oh yeah, and the rest of the world ain't to happy with us either. All of that isn't keeping us safe, it's making things more dangerous. If you want to thank people for keeping our homeland safe, thank the various law enforcement agencies, not our Bush Doctrine strike-first military might. Screw winning the war. There is no war. It's all made-up and was created by us. When something is created on lies, you lose all support and respect from me. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident? That's how Vietnam started on lies. We deserved to lose that politically because it was a war on lies. Same thing with cherry-picked intelligence with Iraq. We deserve to lose that war politically as well. Now if any of these had been a legitimate case for war, hey, you got my support 100% and we wouldn't have a problem with public pressure, but unfortunately, most of ours wars of late have been pure BS and it's why we're in the predicament we are. Nobody likes a liar and unfortunately, absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have our greedy politicians and corporations doing what we're doing because there ain't a damned person or country that can stop us. So what can they do? Don't fight us militarily, fight us economically. Nobody stays on top forever. You gotta have respect where everyone likes or tolerates you to prolong that from happening. Once you get cocky, a bullseye is on you, and you deserve to lose. Do I wish it happened that way or we were in this situation? Hell no, but we deserve it. Hopefully more humiliation will humble us and make us learn to be respected again. - N
You are so right - the parallels between the mythologies of the soviet threat to the west, and the current islamist terror myth bear striking similarities. Its almost as if someone has dug out some old 70s/80s anti soviet propaganda, and sunstituted the word terrorist for communist. It comes as little suprise that they were both fabricated by the very same people - namely Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Laughable innit? links: http://www.daanspeak.com/TranscriptPowerOfNightmares1.html http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay...=1uJaSa7oI43SjgK8lbSwCA&q=power of nightmares
I have a small rock, I purchased it after 9/11, since then we have not had a major terrorist attack, what to say my rock has not protected us since 9/11? Rock, Bush same thing. when would we have won Vietnam, 1980?, 1990? I sure if we had waited until the collapse of the soviet union, so we should have kept fighting for 15-20 years longer, but then what would that have served?
So long Bush & Cheney! http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/01/bush.poll/index.html http://harpers.org/archive/2008/04/hbc-90002804 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/22/poll.cheney/?iref=mpstoryview
We could have won Vietnam at anytime we expended the political will to do so. Militarily we won ever engagement against the V.C. and the NVA. The Strategy of Proportional Response and Containment, in a Police Action, is what led us to the With Drawl in 1975. We never used disproportional force, and took the war to the North, to isolate the Battle Field, and force the North to defend their own ground, which would then have changed the paradigm, and set up a defeat of the North on their own ground. The Politicians Declared Victory and stopped fighting the War, with drew the Troops and brought them home. And then and only then did the North Vietnamese win the war.
Yeah and the south could have won the civil war too if it had made the right moves. So how many soldiers and how much more money would winning Vietnam have coasted us, and what value would it have given us in the long term as well?
That is a unknown answer, but a know answer it the results from WWII, with the Defeat of Germany and Japan, and the fact that they became allies. Political will was the determining factor, followed next by the stupid polices of Containment and Proportional Response, and political inflexibility to adjust to the fact that after Tet of 68, it wasn't a civil war any more, the V.C. were destroyed and ceased to exist, and their small units were replaced by regular NVA line units in a mostly conventional war situation.
Japan and Germany were very different from Vietnam, Iraq and Palestine, Japan and germany had defined armies and hierarchies, which could be destroyed.
-Are you serious ? Bombing Cambodia, spreading agent orange and napalm, you are so full of patriotism that it makes you blind Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! -I bet you agree that Kissinger was worthy of Nobel price ?
No one knew what language Henry Kissenger spoke. No one could understand it. Even Henry couldn't either. That's why Nixon liked him.
