true_blue_bill Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 I don't think it's just political, although he has benefited from that label, but I think there are other factors involved. For one, I think he's spent his whole feeling like he's living in his father's shadow and now he has something that makes him feel really important, like he's accomplishing something instead of just being a steward. I also think that's there's a religious aspect involved as I think he believes he's doing God's Will and has no regrests about sending US servicemen into combat becasue it's the Will of the Lord.He's repeatedly mentioning the fact that he's a wartime president, seemingly with great pride, you regularly hear him talking about "shock and awe", or getting bin Laden "dead or alive", or "bring it on" or "mission accomplished" as if he were a little kid playacting a movie. I honestly think he's having fun making himself feel like some kind of tough guy. Yes, I think he's all but divorced from reality (witness his administrations disdain for "reality-based" policy) and that his repeated references to himself as a wartime president are a way of puffing himself up into something he could never otherwise be; a mountain-moving world-builder presiding over perilous and important times. Aplogies for not being able to support or articulate this well but it's just the sense I get from him when I see and hear him speak. Cya 801944[/snapback] Good post, and I'd just like to add to what I think, Bush thinks. I was very keenly interested in the Panama invasion--I was actually in Panama on Howard AFB just before the invasion--and Gulf War One, which I watched on TV every minute of everyday it happened. I just found out Pete Williams the Pentagon spokesperson who was on TV so much then was gay. Anyway, I think W saw how easy it all was. He saw the conscript Iraqis surrendering in droves. He thought all Iraqis were like that. Panama looked like a pushover and no one asked any questions when it was over. He didn't factor in Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebannon and the disaster that was or the barracks bombing there in 83. He just thought it would be easy. The guy is a dim bulb all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Good post, and I'd just like to add to what I think, Bush thinks. I was very keenly interested in the Panama invasion--I was actually in Panama on Howard AFB just before the invasion--and Gulf War One, which I watched on TV every minute of everyday it happened. I just found out Pete Williams the Pentagon spokesperson who was on TV so much then was gay. Anyway, I think W saw how easy it all was. He saw the conscript Iraqis surrendering in droves. He thought all Iraqis were like that. Panama looked like a pushover and no one asked any questions when it was over. He didn't factor in Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebannon and the disaster that was or the barracks bombing there in 83. He just thought it would be easy. The guy is a dim bulb all around. 802253[/snapback] And here's what I think George W Bush thinks That is all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
true_blue_bill Posted October 12, 2006 Author Share Posted October 12, 2006 And here's what I think George W Bush thinksThat is all 802259[/snapback] It does explain why he thought we would be welcomed with open arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I can only address the points you made towards me. You are very wrong about that article you posted. Did you even read it? It didn't say the news department 'supported' Bush on the war, they explained that they accepted too blindly the propaganda they were fed by them. They said clearly they wished they had been more careful about the sources they were fed. That's pretty clear. Yeah, I did, and I've been a subscriber to the Times for a few years now. My point is that the NY Times was a large instrument in setting the country up for war. This is what I mean by "supported". Not necessarily the individual news editors or writing staff. Many people pointed to the Times articles and said "see, this is why we need to go to war in Iraq", thus my argument that the Times supported the war effort and the war. Most of the country saw these stories coming out in the NY Times (and the other major agenda setter in the US - the Wash. Post, LA Times, and WSJ), or another news agency copying them (network news, for instance), and decided to go to war. The Times, whether it was inadvertent or not, and regardless of the feelings of the staff members, proved to be a big vehicle for the support of the war effort. Perhaps "supported" isn't the best word, because it can be taken to mean the individuals that work for the newspaper rather then the newspaper itself, but I'm hard pressed to come up with a better one. It was such a cornerstone at the time of popular opinion in the United States that "promoted" or "progressed" aren't strong enough words. From the article: Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one. That says a lot. The Bush public case for War in Iraq was reinforced by the same information that duped the NY Times. Neither the government nor The Times most likely did the investigating that they should have. If the Bush administration had this information, which was going to strongly boost support for their foreign policy goals, why the heck would they try to prove it false? Ignorance is bliss, so they say. On the other hand, The Times had a business decision at hand: Do you rely on the President's information and the people that talked to him, or do you log hundreds of man hours and expensive investigative reporting costs to corroborate the story? What "we" (being the public in this case) knew about WMDs in Iraq was the same thing that the White House was pushing, and based off of the same intelligence. If by "we" you mean the governments decision to go to war in Iraq, then to be honest I doubt that WMDs had much to do with it, and this discussion is a moot point. Opposing the war from me had nothing to do with whether there were WMD or not. I thought he probably had something, but Jesus Christ only an idiot would a thought he was building a nuke and we wouldn't know where it was. If he was building one we could of bomb the place. I felt our troops would have been victims to nerve gas or something during the invasion. Thank God they were not subject to that! And I find your reliance on Wilson's foreign policy as very puzzling. It was much simpler than that to figure out why Iraq would n'tbe a democracy. Forget history and use math. 20% of the nation controlled the ignorant, super religious Shiittes and then there were the Kurds who wouldn't be part of the nationa anyway, and had been fighting each other also. Why would the Sunnis ever submit to slavery [democracy] under the Shiites? That blew my mind people thinking that would happen. Of course they wouldn't accept that. The reason why I discuss Wilsonian foreign policy is because Bush is the first President to seemingly share his view on foreign policy and the world. A lot of why Bush does the things he does can be explained by looking at Wilson. Wilson was an idealist who believed that the spread of Democracy could cure most of the ails in the world. He believed that America's foreign policy shouldn't just be for America, but for humanity as a whole. As the leading Democratic country, it is our duty to spread democracy through the world. He also believed that free markets and trade were the keys to economic success. As we were liberators, we would help build up a Democracy, and then the people and governments of the foreign countries, who were formerly oppressed, would be friendly to us. Wilson ran into issues though building stable countries after the invasions. He was criticized for pulling out too soon (lol), and never really made the foreign policy work. Since the Cold War era, we've gone back to Wilsonian politics. The first Bush, and Clinton also, both somewhat subscribed to Wilsonian foreign policy, and W is the biggest subscriber of everyone. We're seeing the same effects too - issues building up countries after we went to war with them. This is why I keep harping on Woodrow Wilson in relation to our current foreign policy. There's evidence that it would work too - Democratic countries generally don't attack each other, people generally have a higher standard of living, etc., if only we could figure out how to stabilize countries after we've converted them. Wilson couldn't do it, and neither could our current or last two Presidents (if Clinton even bothered, lawl). Oh, and on the music, you skipped the other evidence I floated. The music was mentioned to show others wanted revenge and Bush could be the same way. You seem to place this very stupid man abbove that because...well...he is President. What did Thomas Jefferson try and teach us about the Presidency? And do you really think his pictures looking for WMD were taken out of context???? And what did Harry Truman's personal struggles tell us about the Presidency too? They're ordinary human beings, and they have the same struggles that other humans do too. And until I find out otherwise, I'll think of Bush in the same way and give him the benefit of the doubt, much like I would someone else in this situation. OMG!! Please post something that proves me wrong. Please! Out of context? I mean the guy was joking about a mssion in which men he sent were dying. Bill O'Reilly even had the mother of the kid who died that fvcking very day on. Of course he was rude to her But ok. 802244[/snapback] O'Reilly is an idiot, so I'm not even going to touch that one, lol. People deal with different things in different ways, if Bush feels that the best way for him to try to not personalize Iraqi deaths is through humor, then that might just be what is happening. The media gives us a state of "false intimacy" when our elected officials which makes us think that we know them. As its been proven time and time again (most recent, Foley anyone?), we really don't have a clue what these people are like as human beings, only as politicians. Therefore, I default back to my idea that a large majority of human beings would not enjoy sending people off to war and hearing about their deaths, and theres no way we'll know for sure until after his Presidency has ended and some of his more personal struggles are revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 It does explain why he thought we would be welcomed with open arms. 802317[/snapback] But since they didn't welcome us with open arms and flowers, we killed over 600,000 of them in three years. Pretty impressive. Either that's an awful lot of evildoer terrorists or someone's got some 'splainin to do. I'm not making light of it. It is totally disgusting, appalling, horrifying - and whatever GW Bush and his ilk get here, or in the hereafter, for engineering this needless waste of human life, they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Don't worry...we'll leave soon enough. But we're just going to go next door to Iran. THERE they'll welcome us with open arms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Justify that. I'm not disagreeing (I'm of the opinion that, if we leave Iraq, who knows what'll happen). I just want to know what social and psychological factors are behind your statement. 801711[/snapback] Well firstly, I think that automatically assuming that a civil war will occur should the US leave may be overly pessimistic. If the US were to say that they were definitely leaving in a year, for instance, I don't think it is entirely outside the realms of possibility that some sort of deal could be reached between the Iraqi government and the insurgents (for the purposes of this post, I shall use the term "the insurgents" to refer to the relatively rational nationalistic/Baathist component and not the jihadist fanatics). At the moment, the Iraqi government is shielded from the consequences of not reaching a deal by the presence of the coalition forces. If they were to depart they would face the very real prospect of either being killed or having to return to exile in Iran. Also, there's the fact that existing negotiations have almost certainly been hampered by US interference. There have been several occasions when the idea of an amnesty for some insurgents has been mooted i.e. for those who have not committed attacks on civilians. On each and every occasion a week or so later, the Iraqi government has had to "clarify" what they meant by stating that it would also not apply to insurgents that have attacked coalition forces (it is hard to work out just which insurgents it would actually apply to in that case). For the insurgents, indeed for any sort of armed resistance to an occupation, the absolute bottom line is a guarantee that the occupier will in fact leave and does not plan to remain indefinitely. Without that any sort of deal is impossible. However, with that assurance, things change. In fact, several insurgents groups have stated they will stop their attacks if the US sets a timetable whereby it will withdraw its forces within a year. With a definite timetable, the aims of most of the insurgents will inevitably change. At the moment, the aim is the end of the occupation. Once they know that is coming, what then? Do they want to keep fighting to try and overthrow the government? My guess is some will, some won't. Will they continue to get so much support from the population once the only people they can fight are fellow Iraqis? Highly doubtful. Will they continue to make common cause with the jihadists that wish to slaughter the Shiites? Again, I doubt it. For now, it suits the nationalist/Baathist element to turn a blind eye to the activities of the jihadists, since they have a common enemy in the US (though there have been recent reports of fighting between Al-Qaeda and tribal fighters in Al-Anbar province). Once the US leaves, that common enemy is gone and their aims diverge. The nationalist element wants a strong united Iraq and the jihadists would quite like to slaughter the Iraqi shiites. The two goals are incompatible and I think a splintering of the insurgency would be inevitable. Even if some sort of war does occur, I doubt that it will continue indefinitely. One side or another would win and some sort of order would be restored. In any event, I doubt that what happens could be much worse that what is occurring now. The situation is truly dire with absolutely no prospect of an end in sight. Things are not improving, they are deteriorating. The Iraqis need to be left to sort out this mess by themselves, which they will once they are left to get on with it. Continuing the occupation merely delays the inevitable and prolongs the agony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Don't worry...we'll leave soon enough. But we're just going to go next door to Iran. THERE they'll welcome us with open arms... 802452[/snapback] Are you actually being serious ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 But since they didn't welcome us with open arms and flowers, we killed over 600,000 of them in three years. Pretty impressive. Either that's an awful lot of evildoer terrorists or someone's got some 'splainin to do. I'm not making light of it. It is totally disgusting, appalling, horrifying - and whatever GW Bush and his ilk get here, or in the hereafter, for engineering this needless waste of human life, they deserve. 802403[/snapback] Slight correction. Most of the 600,000 weren't killed by the coalition, but rather in the absolute chaos that following the invasion, though they are certainly indirectly responsible in that they created the conditions that caused the current anarchy in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 But since they didn't welcome us with open arms and flowers, we killed over 600,000 of them in three years. Pretty impressive. Either that's an awful lot of evildoer terrorists or someone's got some 'splainin to do. I'm not making light of it. It is totally disgusting, appalling, horrifying - and whatever GW Bush and his ilk get here, or in the hereafter, for engineering this needless waste of human life, they deserve. 802403[/snapback] In an unverified study. Nice. Oh, and you're still a sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 In an unverified study. Nice. Oh, and you're still a sheep. 802527[/snapback] An unverified (how do you verify it?) study that uses well established methods. A pity the US can't be bothered to undertake its own survey but then according to Rumsfeld, "we don't do bodycounts". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 An unverified (how do you verify it?) study that uses well established methods. A pity the US can't be bothered to undertake its own survey but then according to Rumsfeld, "we don't do bodycounts". 802538[/snapback] How about peer review? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 How about peer review? 802543[/snapback] The study was published in The Lancet. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical journal, and is very well respected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 The study was published in The Lancet. The Lancet is a peer-reviewed medical journal, and is very well respected. 802582[/snapback] British medical journal, yes? Still, I have to question HOW a medical journal comes to the numbers that they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 British medical journal, yes? Still, I have to question HOW a medical journal comes to the numbers that they have. 802594[/snapback] Go to The Lancet and read the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 An unverified (how do you verify it?) study that uses well established methods. A pity the US can't be bothered to undertake its own survey but then according to Rumsfeld, "we don't do bodycounts". 802538[/snapback] Well-established statistical methods...that, every time I've checked (quite frequently, actually) are usually high by a factor of 4. I could probably use the same methods to prove 25k people died in NYC on 9/11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Go to The Lancet and read the paper. 802621[/snapback] Hasn't read it, but he "questions" it. How is it so difficult to believe that a comprehensive study of casulties could be done? They talk to the people who handle the bodies, look at their records.... With tortured, headless bodies showing up over 100 a day just for the last couple of months, in Baghdad alone.... Not saying the study is perfect or that anomolies can't occur, but does that mean a hard count should not even be attempted? That was a rich moment. Pres. Bush saying something "isn't credible." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 Hasn't read it, but he "questions" it. How is it so difficult to believe that a comprehensive study of casulties could be done? They talk to the people who handle the bodies, look at their records.... With tortured, headless bodies showing up over 100 a day just for the last couple of months, in Baghdad alone.... Not saying the study is perfect or that anomolies can't occur, but does that mean a hard count should not even be attempted? That was a rich moment. Pres. Bush saying something "isn't credible." 802639[/snapback] I'm saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to establish a solid "THERE ARE EXACTLY 600,000 PEOPLE KILLED IN THIS CONFLICT" when issues such as politics are involved. It's in the best interest of all the involved parties to inflate casaulties, especially to the foreign press. It makes their cause more likeable and makes the other guy look more diabolical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 I'm saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to establish a solid "THERE ARE EXACTLY 600,000 PEOPLE KILLED IN THIS CONFLICT" when issues such as politics are involved. It's in the best interest of all the involved parties to inflate casaulties, especially to the foreign press. It makes their cause more likeable and makes the other guy look more diabolical. 802647[/snapback] As far as inflating casualties goes, it's unlikely in this survey as the Iraqis that were interviewed randomly were asked to provide death certificates, which some 92% of them did. A more likely source of error is the extrapolation from their sample to the population as a whole. They would need to ensure that they got their regional sampling correct (i.e. not oversampling in more dangerous regions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 How is it so difficult to believe that a comprehensive study of casulties could be done? They talk to the people who handle the bodies, look at their records.... 802639[/snapback] Which isn't what they did. Had they, I'd give it more credence. They went around and polled people and families ("So...know anyone who's dead?"), and statistically extrapolated that to an overall death toll for the country. I've seen that method used before. When they eventually compare it to actual body counts, I've never seen it end up accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts