one assumption - i let it go. multiple assumptions - i'm p'd off.
i'm just sayin... 😉

He did use those weapons quite some times before though, yet, no one undertook actions at that point. I mean, the Gulf War just got rid of the Iraqi soldiers in Kuwait, but Saddam could've been taken at that point aswell.

I can't deny that there haven't been any big terrorist attacks on America since then... there have been alot on Americans though. Combined with the fact that there have been numerous people arrested because of tightend security. In years before, they would've gotten through. I guess he deserves a pet on the back for tightening security if you look at it like that....

Now I'm not going as far as to think that Bush staged the attacks on America himself, that's to far fetched for me, but I don't agree that this was a great war or something.

Getting back to my main post though, I'd like to ask you something. DO you really think we will one day look back at Bush and think he is on one line with Lincoln? I saw the piece where he said this about himself aswell, he seems to be somewhat delusional and oblivious.

Rock......i don't think many, if ANY presidents would compare with Lincoln.
But what i DO think is that when people look back in the future, they just might realize that Bush wasn't the idiot the liberals say he was.
NO president is perfect, and mistakes are made.
Look at Vietnam.......had we gone in with all of our forces, we could have won and ended that war in a few weeks.

And those that say Bush set up the attack on America are 100% idiots. That just shows how they let there blind hatred control them, and allow them not to use any of their God given brains.

---

In all honesty, that's a really tough question to answer.

But I would say since Bush's entire presidency happened to start with 9-11, I think 200 years from now people will look back and praise Bush's resiliency on the war against terror, even in the face of opposition.

Much like people look at Truman as a tough leader because of the ultimate decision he had to make during WWII, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

---

Cheesey - I think he's an idiot but from a Right-wing perspective.

1) Spending went through the roof with Bush. Sure you can blame Congress all you want but Bush rarely vetoed ANYTHING, and historically, it's rare vetoes get overturned. So we spent so much that we end up having a multi-trillion dollar deficit, and keep in mind Bush inherited a surplus. Scariest part of it all is we now owe almost a trillion to China alone, a country that has nuclear warheads pointed at us and hates us.

2) More on economics - he failed to enforce the illegal immigration laws. Illegals undercut family farmers and the working classes, but Bush seemed to love those illegal aliens. Illegals are also really hurting the border states. They're completely ruining a lot of once nice areas of California and our schools have gone to **** because of them. We're having to cut good classes like shop, art, music, gifted/talented, etc., all in favor of ESL (English as a Second Language). Thanks Bush.

3) Maintaining Most Favored Nation status with China, a country as I've said that has nukes pointed as us. Granted, so did Clinton and so did Bush's father, who if I'm not mistaken was the one who granted them that status in the first place. This has been an economic disaster for America. I've been saying this for years and finally people are realizing I was right all along.

It just amazes me how people used to fear the Soviet Union and call them the "Evil Empire" when they were saints compared to today's China. Saints. Yes, they did horrible, horrible things, but China does them on a whole new level. The Soviets never killed "enemies of the state" and ATE them. Yes, this happened during the Cultural Revolution. The Soviets also killed less people than the Chinese. Stalin, one of the most evil people in history, killed between 19-27 million people. Mao killed 55 million. The Chinese also murder political dissidents and sell their organs on the black market. Now, the Soviets did horrible things, but I don't remember them doing that. People disappearing at night? Happened all the time in the Soviet Union but in China, they grab them right in front of your eyes and nobody can do a G/D thing about it.

As for the whole terrorism thing, the whole 9/11 really pisses me off. It's SECURITY that caused 9/11 in the first place. The only security in this world is you, and Bush is part of the "government will keep you secure" mentality which is a poison to Freedom and Privacy. An absolute poison. When the children of today are wondering what it used to be like back in the days when people were Free in America, you can point them to the Bush Administration.

I strongly believe Bush will go down in history as a horrible President and he doesn't belong in the same sentence as Abe.

---

No hostility, you think I'm a mean old man and I think you're a naive little girl.

---

Anyone who thinks the United States has stabilized Iraq has absolutely no understanding of Middle East tribal culture. When the United States finally pulls out of Iraq, that country will dissolve into its three main tribal fiefdoms (Kurdistan, Sunnistan, and Shi'astan), and thank God for that! Iraq in its current configuration is an "artificial nation" whose national boundaries were imposed by Great Britain around 1918 and is INTRINSICALLY unstable because Arabs are tribally oriented and have no sense of the nation-state, nor do they want to. There's a reason why Saddam Hussein was a brutal, secular dictator: it was the only way to keep the nation together. As soon as we removed that stabilizing force, the nation predictably dissolved into civil war (as a massive 1999 US military war-game predicted would happen, even were we to occupy the nation with 500,000 troops). Hussein may have been an evil man, but he was undeniably the right man for the job -- assuming it's a good thing to keep Iraq together at all, which I personally don't believe.

The only reason why the Sunnis had favored continued American occupation was they were were terrified they'd be cut off from oil supplies should the nation be split into three states (the Kurdish north and Shi'a south have oil, but until recently, the Sunni central region had none). Now that a potentially lucrative oil field has been discovered in central Iraq, look for Sunni support of nationhood to dissolve steadily.

From the beginning of the occupation, the national government has been largely a figurehead, with most of the power residing in the provincial governments. Twenty years from now, look for "Iraq" (if the name exists at all) to be at most a nominally federal entity -- the Confederation of Iraqi States, if you will. But the real power will reside within the tribal units.

---

Iraq would have imploded long ago if not for the success that has been achieved to date. There is a reason why Obama chose who he chose for secretary of Defense (those who say otherwise are in denial).

A big deal was made out of Saddam Hussein using poison gas on the Kurds; the reality is many of the governments in the region have attacked their own people in the last 30-plus years. I'm also booked for a trip to Egypt later this year and have been doing some homework and have been enlightened with some of the issues.

So... I'm pretty sure your comments are to everyone and not just me, but you're not the only one who is aware of the dynamics of the separate factions within Iraq and the Middle East.

Regardless, it will not be the fault of the United States when they eventually pull out and Iraq reverts. At least, not for now. Either way, I'm sure we'll have another silly thread like this because we'll all know where the blame lies. 😛

---

keep assuming, veg. it's enjoyable.

No, it won't be our fault -- it will be the natural course of tribal devolution, and it will be a good thing. Right now all we're doing is delaying the inevitable, unfortunately.

In a way, I'm so glad I got to spend time over there. It opened my eyes to things I had never understood before.

---