Just what has Bush done, anyway?

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-05 08:31pm

What are the positive aspects of Bush's presidency? What has he actually done for the nation? I can't really think of much.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-05 08:33pm

Curbstomping the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan stands out.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-06-05 08:46pm

SirNitram wrote:Curbstomping the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan stands out.

Ending over a decade of oppressive sanctions on the Iraqi people and
getting rid of Soddom Insane.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-05 08:49pm

MKSheppard wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Curbstomping the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan stands out.
Ending over a decade of oppressive sanctions on the Iraqi people and
getting rid of Soddom Insane.

Given the shitstorm rising in the wake, that's going to take some professional spinsters to be presented as 'positive' anytime soon.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-05 08:55pm

SirNitram wrote:Curbstomping the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan stands out.

Isn't the Taliban somewhat resurgent at the moment?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-05 09:01pm

Plekhanov wrote:
SirNitram wrote:Curbstomping the Taliban and A-Q in Afghanistan stands out.
Isn't the Taliban somewhat resurgent at the moment?

"Somewhat resurgent?" It takes a LOT of spin-doctoring to claim that. They've gone from controlling over 90% of the population of Afghanistan and almost 95% of its territory to controlling less than 15% of each.

Plekhanov · Post by **Plekhanov** » 2004-06-05 09:15pm

Master of Ossus wrote:"Somewhat resurgent?" It takes a LOT of spin-doctoring to claim that. They've gone from controlling over 90% of the population of Afghanistan and almost 95% of its territory to controlling less than 15% of each.

Still that would suggest that Bush switched the focus to Iraq before the job was completed in Afghanistan.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2004-06-05 09:20pm

Plekhanov wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:"Somewhat resurgent?" It takes a LOT of spin-doctoring to claim that. They've gone from controlling over 90% of the population of Afghanistan and almost 95% of its territory to controlling less than 15% of each.
Still that would suggest that Bush switched the focus to Iraq before the job was completed in Afghanistan.

It's the Taliban, they're a terrorist group, we're really not gonna be able to clean them out of a nation, especially with all the bloody open ground in the nation. And don't forget that we still have troops in Afghanistan last I heard.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-06-05 09:24pm

Captain_Cyran wrote:
Plekhanov wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:"Somewhat resurgent?" It takes a LOT of spin-doctoring to claim that. They've gone from controlling over 90% of the population of Afghanistan and almost 95% of its territory to controlling less than 15% of each.
Still that would suggest that Bush switched the focus to Iraq before the job was completed in Afghanistan.
It's the Taliban, they're a terrorist group, we're really not gonna be able to clean them out of a nation, especially with all the bloody open ground in the nation. And don't forget that we still have troops in Afghanistan last I heard.

We're as deep into Afghanistan as we are into Iraq. The only difference is that you don't have 3 major religious divisions fighting each other for power and a half dozen countries surrounding it that are sending in people to stop the democratic process from happening.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-05 09:47pm

Son of the Suns wrote: We're as deep into Afghanistan as we are into Iraq. The only difference is that you don't have 3 major religious divisions fighting each other for power and a half dozen countries surrounding it that are sending in people to stop the democratic process from happening.

That and the thriving Opium trade and strong Warlords are keeping people in line.

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-06-05 09:49pm

The Kernel wrote:
Son of the Suns wrote: We're as deep into Afghanistan as we are into Iraq. The only difference is that you don't have 3 major religious divisions fighting each other for power and a half dozen countries surrounding it that are sending in people to stop the democratic process from happening.
That and the thriving Opium trade and strong Warlords are keeping people in line.

pfffft details details.

I'd be happy if we could just find one of them that we knew would not step on every one's human rights and would allow for a reasonable amount of democracy. Arm that person to the teeth to ensure that they stay in power.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-05 09:51pm

Son of the Suns wrote:We're as deep into Afghanistan as we are into Iraq. The only difference is that you don't have 3 major religious divisions fighting each other for power and a half dozen countries surrounding it that are sending in people to stop the democratic process from happening.

Don't you realize that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken in order to put pressure on those countries? That's the so-called "democratization of the middle east" domino-effect plan that the neo-cons were whoring last year. When you publicize the fact that you intend to use a country as a stepping stone to overthrow the societal order in neighbouring countries, why the fuck should you be surprised when those neighbouring countries try to fight you on the beach head rather than waiting for you to establish yourself and then continue your campaign?

Son of the Suns · Post by **Son of the Suns** » 2004-06-05 10:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:Don't you realize that the invasion of Iraq was undertaken in order to put pressure on those countries?

Yep

When you publicize the fact that you intend to use a country as a stepping stone to overthrow the societal order in neighbouring countries, why the fuck should you be surprised when those neighbouring countries try to fight you on the beach head rather than waiting for you to establish yourself and then continue your campaign?

I didn't say I was suprised, I was indicating the differences between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-06-05 10:21pm

Plekhanov wrote:Still that would suggest that Bush switched the focus to Iraq before the job was completed in Afghanistan.

No army or government has ever controlled 100% of Afghanistan. It's just one of those things.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-05 11:08pm

The problem is that Afghanistan is far from a unified country, free from the Taliban. Afghanistan's offical leader is for all intensive purposes mayor of Kabul and much of the country is run by local warlords who aren't exactly under control, but haven't caused much trouble because they are largely being left alone to do what they want. Can we really call Afghanistan a success, with considering how messed up it still is?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-05 11:10pm

I would guess that the jury is still out on Afghanistan.

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2004-06-05 11:20pm

Pablo wrote:No army or government has ever controlled 100% of Afghanistan. It's just one of those things.

I thought the Kushan had a pretty good hold on things until the Muslims invaded.

Dennis Toy · Post by **Dennis Toy** » 2004-06-06 01:10am

They'll be getting Syria next. As i keep saying, this war was for oil.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-06 01:16am

Syria doesn't have any oil.

And they don't have the troops to get Syria anytime soon.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2004-06-06 01:45am

Vympel wrote:Syria doesn't have any oil.

Actually Syria does produce around 500.000 barrels per day.
Iraq: 2.5 million
Saudi Arab: 8 million
World: 75 million
All 2001 numbers from the cia factbook

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-06-06 01:48am

Dennis Toy wrote:They'll be getting Syria next. As i keep saying, this war was for oil.

Well, as Vympel pointed out, Syria has no oil, so your statement would seem more reasonable if you replaced Syria with Iran.

Not that that matters: I doubt the US Armed Forces are going to be able to mount any kind of OIF-scale operation within Bush's presidency, even if he wins a second term. On top of that, taking Iran or Syria would require an even larger operation than OIF (as their armed forces are more powerful than Iraq's were before OIF), and it's a forgeone conclusion that the US will not have any allied support if it attacked either country, so no: A pre-emptive US attack on Iran or Syria is not going to happen...

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-06 01:50am

Yeah, but that's pretty crap oil. Not worth going to war over. The question is reserves, rahter than how much they make.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-06-06 02:07am

Dennis Toy wrote:They'll be getting Syria next. As i keep saying, this war was for oil.

If we were after Iraqi oil we could have gotten it without going to war.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-06-06 02:21am

Dennis Toy wrote:They'll be getting Syria next. As i keep saying, this war was for oil.

Then why have gas prices spiked over the past few months? Where's that damn oil? If we're going to go kicking up a big shitstorm in Iraq, the least we could do is have a tangible silver lining to it.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-06-06 02:26am

Uraniun235 wrote:
Dennis Toy wrote:They'll be getting Syria next. As i keep saying, this war was for oil.
Then why have gas prices spiked over the past few months? Where's that damn oil? If we're going to go kicking up a big shitstorm in Iraq, the least we could do is have a tangible silver lining to it.

*dons tinfoil hat* It's so that Bush and Cheney's cronies in Haliburton can have bigger profits. It's not about lowering gas prices! Why else do you think Haliburton has all those nice no-bid contracts in Iraq! Is it any coincidence that Cheney used to be chairman of Haliburton *takes off tinfoil hat*