Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-06 19:31:26

George W. Bush, the President of the United States of America, was worried that Iraq would attack the USA with weapons of mass destruction. He could have ordered that nuclear warheads be used to obliterate all of the major cities in the Sunni Triangle, thereby eliminating the possibility of Iraq attacking the USA. However, rather than solving the problem in 30 minutes or less, President Bush decided to send more than 100,000 American soldiers to Iraq. More than 1,000 of those soldiers have been killed and several thousand more have been crippled.

The threat that Iraq posed to the United States could have been eliminated simply by pushing a few "launch" buttons. Instead, American soldiers have been slaughtered in Iraq. Why? To me, the answer is obvious. George Bush did not have the courage to use nuclear weapons to eliminate the threat. George Bush wimped-out and now thousands of American soldiers have been killed or crippled.

George Bush is not fit to lead the United States of America. George Bush is a coward.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-06 20:18:44

A pointless poll based on contrived and simplistic logic, in my opinion.

[Oh, and just what we need, too ... another thread designed to give Bushophobes more excuses to air their pathology.
Even the hardened political debaters at New Mars, with the exception of one or two diehards, have grown weary of that particular fray, Scott. ]

MarsDog · 2005-01-06 20:23:34

If democracy was the aim then all the dictators should have been ousted.
Country borders redrawn to reduce ethnic and religious conflicts.

Using large troop numbers to secure old borders allows US to rule the oil fields in the confusion.

1,000 is small compared to http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm]alcohol related car accidents.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-06 20:36:53

If George Bush is not a coward, then at least he gives an aspiring coward something to shoot for.

Larry,

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-06 20:43:04

If this sort of debate in Free Chat were any more weighted down with.. ah.. "predisposition" then I imagine the server rack would tip over. To the left of course. BDS is pretty common these days, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Now if you had botherd to use your head rather then launch into a "Bush is a (insert bad thing here)!" Scott, you would have realized that Saddam would not attack us directly with regular methods, but would instead sneak the weapons into America and other places (see also: Jordian attempted CW attack) covertly.

Making chemical weapons is relativly easy if you know what you are doing and have the tools and materials you need, and could quite easily be hidden, such as under the miles of tunnels that Saddam and his German buddies dug. There, particularly the ones built under major cities, no practical nuclear strike could reach. Only the massive multimegaton superbombs like the now-retired B53 or the penitrator B61 Mark-11 can destroy moderatly buried targets, and no nuclear warhead can destroy deeply buried ones in theory.

Nor would an EMP bomb destroy the chemicals... just replace the fuses and some motors and start back up again. Obviously, conventional bunker-buster bombs would not reach, nor would a bombardment with Thermobaric weapons be practical.

So you see, there would be no sure way to stop production other then to physically send soldiers to the tunnels and stop the operation "in person" so to speak... He could also simply hide the equipment in the sand.

...Then there is that little issue that you hopscotched over, that we wouldn't vaporize millions of innocent people and/or the smaller B61's massive fallout that would wipe out cities, whom were living under the thumb of a brutal and opressive dictator who admired Adolph Hitler...

PS: Don't forget that Saddam also used chemical weapons quite liberally when pressed, and he did indeed have contact with Al Qaeda, which is not a matter for subjective debate but a matter of factual reccord, though he probobly didn't have much to do with the specific 9/11 attack.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-06 21:08:21

Oh, where to start... <shakes head in bewilderment>

Suddenly the Cobra "get Roman" approach looks damn moderate.

What exactly is cowardly about not nuking millions of people just to get rid of some chemical weapons?

BWhite · 2005-01-06 21:17:50

Well, at least someone besides John Kerry now says we need a bigger army:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtm … ...7260440

The senior Army general, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity. . .

But of course, it needs to be anonymous.

Edited By BWhite on 1105067948

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-06 21:27:09

And of course, I wouldn't put it past Al-Reuters to make s*** up.

BWhite · 2005-01-06 21:28:58

And of course, I wouldn't put it past Al-Reuters to make s*** up.

Fair enough.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1239fda6-6052- … .html]This general gives his name.

US Army Reserves are "broken"

= = =

And the head of Iraqi intelligence (he's on our side) says the insurgency now numbers over 200,000. Yup dead-enders. All 200,000 of 'em.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 22,00.html

Edited By BWhite on 1105069269

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-06 22:03:46

And the head of Iraqi intelligence (he's on our side) says the insurgency now numbers over 200,000. Yup dead-enders. All 200,000 of 'em.

So all we have to do is piss off the rest of them enough to join the insurgency and we can use Scott's "Nuke 'em" option.

I'm mildly surpised you think we should have a bigger army, Bill. Wouldn't that just make us better positioned to engage in the very sort of "topple and occupy" missions you've opposed all along?

I get the impression that you're suggesting we need a military ideally suited to conquering and occupying entire nations while following a purely defensive, non-preemtive policy. It seems a bit disjointed.

All geared up with nowhere to go? ???

BWhite · 2005-01-06 22:15:04

Actually, I believe the current Bush adminstration is rather like the corporate raiders who buy a company and loot the pension fund. They don't give a damn about the future.

We have an excellent military, and we need a top notch military but Bush is intent on blunting its edge. In 2008 or 2010 or 2012 when we might really need it, the military will be broken and demoralized.

= = =

Had we not done Iraq, we wouldn't need more soldiers. But we are there.

You do have a point, if things keep getting worse, and we do not increase the military, we could well suffer a humiliating defeat. And then the freepers will blame the gay rights activists for that.

Edited By BWhite on 1105071542

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-06 22:18:11

*shrug* Ya know, if you read the article, you might pick up on somthing:

"200,000 fighters" and active supporters

"40,000 hardcore fighters"

So which is it?

Annnd given that we've been taking them out in roughly a 15-20:1 ratio... This is assuming that the really big 40,000 number is accurate, which it probobly isn't... if it were, the attacks would be many fold what they are now. A five-fold difference here...

BWhite · 2005-01-06 22:19:46

*shrug* Ya know, if you read the article, you might pick up on somthing:
"200,000 fighters" and active supporters
"40,000 hardcore fighters"
So which is it?
Annnd given that we've been taking them out in roughly a 15-20:1 ratio... This is assuming that the really big 40,000 number is accurate, which it probobly isn't... if it were, the attacks would be many fold what they are now. A five-fold difference here...

15 - 1? Got proof?

Fallajuh was supposedly the turning point.

= = =

How many of our 150,000 are war fighters and how many are truck drivers and file clerks? Our speartip is about 40,000 - 50,000 as well.

= = =

Edit #2 - - what was the kill ratio in Vietnam?

IIRC (in general) 10 to 1 in our favor and the insurgency is winning, big time.

Do we could Coalition Iraqi deaths?

Edited By BWhite on 1105071792

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-06 22:24:02

We have an excellent military, and we need a top notch military but Bush is intent on blunting its edge. In 2008 or 2010 or 2012 when we really need it, the military will be broken and demoralized.

From fighting the very sort of conflict we need it for in the first place, it seems.

If your assessment is correct, then we have essentially two options: Either we pick one big target and hope it's the right one to solve the largest chunk of our problems, or we decide collectively that our people are worth more than everyone else and fight each little war from a purely military perspective. Kill them, destroy their ability to threaten us in the future, then leave the survivors to fend for themselves.

The first is total simplistic fantasy, the latter is... unpleasant and "wraithing" for lack of a better term.

BWhite · 2005-01-06 22:53:21

I'm mildly surpised you think we should have a bigger army, Bill. Wouldn't that just make us better positioned to engage in the very sort of "topple and occupy" missions you've opposed all along?

Actually, in the abstract, removing Saddam was a very GOOD and NOBLE thing to do. Exactly what we should be more willing to do IF we refrain from micro-managing the aftermath.

But as I said right here at NewMars, before we removed Saddam, we were woefully underestimating the challenge of Part #2, the reconstruction. To be candid, on the day Bush flew to that aircraft carrier and announced "Mission Accomplished" I genuinely felt I might have been wrong, but no more.

Paul Bremer went in with a "theory trumps facts" plan to Ameri-form Iraq into some sort of Ayn Rand loving libertarian paradise and we end up FUBAR-ed.

BWhite · 2005-01-06 23:00:16

We have an excellent military, and we need a top notch military but Bush is intent on blunting its edge. In 2008 or 2010 or 2012 when we really need it, the military will be broken and demoralized.
If your assessment is correct, then we have essentially two options: Either we pick one big target and hope it's the right one to solve the largest chunk of our problems, or we decide collectively that our people are worth more than everyone else and fight each little war from a purely military perspective. Kill them, destroy their ability to threaten us in the future, then leave the survivors to fend for themselves.

The "real" conflict is the geo-political order for the 21st century. The undeclared war Bush launched was a diplomatic war to re-shape the existing United Nations structure.

Let me concede the merits of that (for tonight - heh!) and presume the UN system is / was fatally broken.

We still deployed far, far, far too few resources to win that conflict. Bush acted like he could fly to NYC, wave his jockstrap at the UN and say "Don't mess was Texas" and the French, et. al would crumble and pay homage to America.

I agree 100% with Taylor Dinerman. Europe's Galileo project is all about military and strategic interest. Without a parallel to our GPS and space assets, the EU and the Russians and the Chinese are powerless.

But we are fighting the whole damn world (except Britain and Australia, sort of) and we are cutting taxes and acting like Iraq will still be a cakewalk.

= = =

Bush has picked fights with lots of people and he will be back in Crawford when it come time to pay up.

Edited By BWhite on 1105074067

BWhite · 2005-01-06 23:05:31

And of course, I wouldn't put it past Al-Reuters to make s*** up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar … tml]Second link

BWhite · 2005-01-06 23:32:35

And the head of Iraqi intelligence (he's on our side) says the insurgency now numbers over 200,000. Yup dead-enders. All 200,000 of 'em.
So all we have to do is piss off the rest of them enough to join the insurgency and we can use Scott's "Nuke 'em" option.

I know "nuke their ass, steal their gas" is a freeper wet dream - - but there is a problem with that.

Suppose we did kill 99% of the population in the Persian Gulf and suppose the oil fields somehow survived to be "stolen"

If I among were the evil leaders of China (and "evil" is now a rather pedestrian term) I would announce that 100 million of my countrymen just decided to walk to the Red Sea.

Everyone gets bags of rice and every one in ten gets an AK-47 and the whole migration gets a nuclear umbrella. I suspect India and Pakistan would follow suit.

Consequence? No oil for Uncle Sam anyways.

RobertDyck · 2005-01-07 01:34:01

A pointless poll based on contrived and simplistic logic, in my opinion.
[Oh, and just what we need, too ... another thread designed to give Bushophobes more excuses to air their pathology.
Even the hardened political debaters at New Mars, with the exception of one or two diehards, have grown weary of that particular fray, Scott. ]

Hear Hear!

Sometimes I think we Canadians have been a little spoiled these last 11 years. We've actually had a good government and politicians we could vote for. At the election of 25 October 1993, I felt all candidates for Prime Minister were malicious or idiots, all party platforms were bad, so I went to the campaign office of all candidates in my riding. I asked for a personal interview with the candidate as a voter, and chose a local candidate. However, the individual who became Prime Minister chose to make his strongest opponent at the party leadership convention the finance minister. He proved to be the best finance minister in Canadian history. The combination of a left-wing Prime Minister and right-wing Finance Minister proved to be an excellent balance. At the last election that Finance Minister became Prime Minister.

However, Americans are still stuck with no candidate to support. I was an immigrant from Canada working for the county government in Miami during the lead-up to the 2000 Presidential election. My girlfriend at the time in Miami tried to get me involved as a means to keep me there, but I had to tell her the only candidate I thought was competent had just dropped out. I tried to debate politics on New Mars during the campaign for the 2004 Presidential election. I'm quite tired of it. The bottom line is George W. Bush is president for another 4 years, get over it. Let's pick up the debate again in 2008.

For now, we have a president who supports the space program. Whether you think good or ill of his other policies, we are here to support space and specifically a manned mission to Mars. He has given NASA focus that has been missing since Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo in 1972. That's exactly what we need; let's build on it.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-01-07 01:35:59

Scott Beach is a social engineer from way back. Nothing wrong with that, of course; it's a free country.

My first impression of his interesting and blatantly outrageous introduction to this thread was that it was some kind of deliberate experiment. You know .. put the lab rats into a new maze and see who can run it the fastest. As I indicated at the beginning, the premise of Scott's argument, coming from an ostensibly intelligent man, is so crass and filled with illogic that it simply can't have been anything else.

It still looks that way from where I'm sitting, though I admit I may be mistaken.

If my interpretation does happen to be correct, then it seems the little experiment may have had the expected outcome.
Well, Scott? Did it? :;):

[DISCLAIMER: I do not categorise as a "lab rat" anyone who responded in any way to Scott's poll. The term was used only to illustrate a point and no offence against any New Mars contributor was intended.]

Incidentally, I assume I could have become part of the data derived from the purported experiment, since I was the first to respond to it. And now, I'm making things worse in adding more data by whingeing about the thread a second time!!
:laugh:

BWhite · 2005-01-07 07:29:41

Scott Beach is well known here, from before. Enough said.

However "nuke their ass, steal their gas" is an idea growing in popularity amongst America's wing-nuts. The growth of such sentiments makes following a sensible and prudent foreign policy increasingly difficult.

Cobra Commander · 2005-01-07 11:00:08

But as I said right here at NewMars, before we removed Saddam, we were woefully underestimating the challenge of Part #2, the reconstruction. To be candid, on the day Bush flew to that aircraft carrier and announced "Mission Accomplished" I genuinely felt I might have been wrong, but no more.

Hmm, that's when I began to have real doubts about it.

The "real" conflict is the geo-political order for the 21st century. The undeclared war Bush launched was a diplomatic war to re-shape the existing United Nations structure.

"Real" conflict is misleading, we're engaged in a number of "real" conflicts but the point is essentially correct. Iraq isn't just about Iraq, and it isn't just about terrorism.

If I among were the evil leaders of China (and "evil" is now a rather pedestrian term) I would announce that 100 million of my countrymen just decided to walk to the Red Sea.
Everyone gets bags of rice and every one in ten gets an AK-47 and the whole migration gets a nuclear umbrella. I suspect India and Pakistan would follow suit.
Consequence? No oil for Uncle Sam anyways.

Which is precisely why "kicking the petrol habit" isn't an answer either. We stop buying Saudi gas and they have a hard time for about a week before the ChiComs jump in, then our big long-term emerging rival has access to cheap oil and we lose any means of pressuring those countries. Disengaging isn't the answer any more than a sheet of hot glass from the 'stans to the West Bank is.

For now, we have a president who supports the space program. Whether you think good or ill of his other policies, we are here to support space and specifically a manned mission to Mars. He has given NASA focus that has been missing since Richard Nixon cancelled Apollo in 1972. That's exactly what we need; let's build on it.

Well said, Robert. Time for all of us to take the good with bad and make the best of the cards we've been dealt.

Which isn't to say that Bill and I won't battle for the next four years.

However "nuke their ass, steal their gas" is an idea growing in popularity amongst America's wing-nuts. The growth of such sentiments makes following a sensible and prudent foreign policy increasingly difficult.

Growing in popularity? Are you saying that more moderate people are beginning to warm up to the idea or that more of the country are becoming "wing-nuts". Presumably you don't include Leftwing nuts in the characterization.

Palomar · 2005-01-07 11:26:55

*I find it the height of hilarity that someone who only shows up at New Mars occasionally to pontificate, and who rarely keeps his own threads afloat -- either running away from the matter instead when he gets too much negative reaction OR hissily demanding "you owe me an apology!" to many folks here (who merely disagreed with him, no matter how politely) -- has the gall to call someone else a coward. :laugh: :laugh:

Oh well, maybe your good pal from southern California will come back and help take the pressure off you, as we've seen countless times in the past.

Yeah, it's easy to call the President of the United States a coward. Could you do it to his face, though? I really, REALLY doubt it.

Last thought: I've done my share of political discussions but honestly...Robert's right, give it a rest. And check out my signature line.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-01-07 12:42:11

If I among were the evil leaders of China (and "evil" is now a rather pedestrian term) I would announce that 100 million of my countrymen just decided to walk to the Red Sea.
Everyone gets bags of rice and every one in ten gets an AK-47 and the whole migration gets a nuclear umbrella. I suspect India and Pakistan would follow suit.
Consequence? No oil for Uncle Sam anyways.
Which is precisely why "kicking the petrol habit" isn't an answer either. We stop buying Saudi gas and they have a hard time for about a week before the ChiComs jump in, then our big long-term emerging rival has access to cheap oil and we lose any means of pressuring those countries. Disengaging isn't the answer any more than a sheet of hot glass from the 'stans to the West Bank is.

We need to accomplish some "honest to God" nation building. But we need secuirty first. Which we do not have.

Can't just kill 'em and we can't walk away.

How long do we have to restore basic infrastructure and security before 95% of the Iraqis simply want us to leave? Have we passed that point already?

Scott G. Beach · 2005-01-07 14:32:30

Shaun:

You wrote, "Scott's argument, coming from an ostensibly intelligent man, is so crass and filled with illogic..."

Seven more American soldiers were KILLED yesterday in Iraq.

Seven more lives thrown away for absolutely nothing. If you focused on that you would see the logic in my "argument."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-01-06 19:31:26

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#2 2005-01-06 20:18:44

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#3 2005-01-06 20:23:34

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#4 2005-01-06 20:36:53

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#5 2005-01-06 20:43:04

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#6 2005-01-06 21:08:21

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#7 2005-01-06 21:17:50

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#8 2005-01-06 21:27:09

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#9 2005-01-06 21:28:58

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#10 2005-01-06 22:03:46

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#11 2005-01-06 22:15:04

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#12 2005-01-06 22:18:11

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#13 2005-01-06 22:19:46

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#14 2005-01-06 22:24:02

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#15 2005-01-06 22:53:21

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#16 2005-01-06 23:00:16

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#17 2005-01-06 23:05:31

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#18 2005-01-06 23:32:35

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#19 2005-01-07 01:34:01

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#20 2005-01-07 01:35:59

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#21 2005-01-07 07:29:41

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#22 2005-01-07 11:00:08

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#23 2005-01-07 11:26:55

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#24 2005-01-07 12:42:11

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

#25 2005-01-07 14:32:30

Re: Is George Bush a Coward - More Than 1,000 Americans Killed

Board footer