English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I find that people on this board rave about how they love bush, but none of them seem to talk about what his plans are, Iraq or otherwise. What do you think his plan is in Iraq? What plans do you think he has for withdrawal, or is he just going to keep fighting until "the job is finished"? Please answer, because all Bush supporters seem to say is that he is making America safer, but how?

2007-02-23 08:36:23 · 19 answers · asked by ajfrederick9867 4 in Politics & Government Politics

Yeah but what is his definition of total victory?

2007-02-23 08:44:47 · update #1

Yes that's true, Democrats are just as guilty of blindly following their party as Republicans. I find independent thought in politics to be a very rare thing

2007-02-23 08:46:59 · update #2

But after D-day we had a clear goal in mind, oust Hitler and free the Jews from the death camps. Bush's goals are always shifting...

2007-02-23 08:49:59 · update #3

19 answers

The Bush plan really isn't that complex, or hard to understand. It's just that Bush's detractors keep insisting he admit that the whole war was a mistake, and that it's time to come home. The only problem is, Bush above all Americans, understands this war shall have no time table, nor can be won by turning coat and running as Clinton did in Mogadishu.

The so called "Bush doctrine" in a nutshell is to go after those who are actively involved in, support or harbour terrorists. He has intentionally left this open to loose interpretations for a variety of reasons, namely because he realizes that until the "mission is accomplished" there cannot be nor will not be a time table set, nor a definitive single tactic named or given until one is devised which works effectively.

When dealing with terrorists who change tactics daily, follow no Geneva convention rules, nor answer to the UN, the leader of the free world must therefore resort to observing the enemy's tactics and adjust accordingly to counter the opposition's approach.

Bush's detractors simply do not understand that the war between Good and Evil has shifted from the figurative to the literal. When dealing with Islamist extremism, one must consider our enemy does not operate with a rational mind and cannot be countered accordingly. This war is unique in that sense, and is being fought like no other war because we are now in a new realm. Some are already referring to this war as World War 3 based not so much on the size of the War, but its span. Unlike previous wars, this enemy isn't well funded, doesn't often show their faces, must resort to poking heads out of caves, and rigging IUD's.

Why can't the left understand that we are not even facing a single entity or a recognized nation? Can't they see that thus far, this enemy's most effective weapons to date have been a Commercial Airliner in conjunction with anti-American world media coverage?

Simply put Bush's detractors are angry at the wrong side. They are far too apt to conjure up any nonsense motive du jour whether it be Haliburton, Oil or otherwise so as to pin blame on Bush for a war he never waged and one he has not yet profited from.

In fact, the same liberals who in one breath state with absolute certainty that Bush is profiting hand over fist from this war, then complain of the skyrocketing cost. Which is it retards?

Truth is, people do not support war, they support defenders of freedom (Bush included). Truth is, supporters of freedom look with suspicion on those who defend the enemy while questioning their own President's motives. Why is it liberals, demand we conservatives not question their patriotism when in fact they do everything in their power to prove they are drawn to every anti-American cause?

2007-02-23 09:51:56 · answer #1 · answered by Jarhead 91 2 · 0 1

Lets evaluate this objectively. Obviously nobody wants to tie the hands of those protecting us. But, the warrentless idea, w/o any accountability is not only dangerous but unnecessary. An Asst. D.A. can get a warrant in less than a minute, over the phone. How can a tap even be executed faster than a warrant can be obtained. I urge all to consider that checks and balances are possibly the most critical necessity in the type of gov't that we've developed thru 200+ yrs of hands on experience. I hesitate to disregard that fact for no visible gain.

2016-03-16 00:02:41 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It's called the Rove strategy. You see, he knows that if they talk issues, real issues, they lose. But he also knows that if they lay on the lies, insults and inuendo that some people will be gullible enough to believe them.

Hermann Goering, Hitler's Propaganda Minister said, "Voice or no voice, the people can always bebrought to the gbidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger".

Do you think Herr Goering might have anticipated a Bush presidency? Georgie's grandpappy sold goods to the Nazis so there may be a closer connection than anyone could imagine.

2007-02-23 08:45:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I think his strategy is exactly what he has said: Support the freely elected Iraqi government, kill terrorists, train new Iraq army.

All these things are happening. Maybe they are happening slower than people would like, but they are progressing.

After the success of D-Day (June 1944), many predicted the war would be over by Christmas. The war lasted until August of 1945. It was longer and bloodier than people predicted. It would have been incredibly stupid to stop fighting the war at Christmas of 1944 just because people thought it would be done by then. You have to accept that reality does not always meet expectations. But you can't use that as an excuse to surrender and do a half-assed job. That's just dumb.

2007-02-23 08:46:46 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1 2

He is the decider. People think he's stupid but he is a genius I tell you a genius, I heard him say the other day that before he leaves office he is gonna have a man on the sun. That's right bucko a man on the sun. We have the technology already. We have the rockets. The Gravity of that thing is real strong and they can save on fuel and get there quicker than Mars. Genius I tell you he is a genius, less than two years he is gonna have a man planting Old Glory right there on El Sol I tell you. That will show those terrorists and those damn Liberals whats what.
HeII he is even thinking about taking the trip himself. Al Gore that Libtard science Guy told him that the surface of the sun is 16,000 degrees Fahrenheit that he would burn up. But you know what he told that jerk, he has that all figured out too. I tell you people think he's dumb as a box of rocks but I tell you he's a genius. He told old Al Gore that he already thought about that one too. He said that he is going to go at night.

2007-02-23 08:56:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

I beleive them to be either a) plain insane. Or B) caught up in some unsavory Evangelist Christrians, who are perverting Christian teachings, and promoting END TIMES saying things like it is our duty to NUKE the middle East to forefill some translation in revelations. (I kid you not) so I imagine to them the idiot in cheif is doing Gods work attacking innocents and making obscene profits off the misery of others along with all his oil freinds. These people I would consider niave extremis and probably rather rich so the likes of Pat Robertson can secure donations and keep personaly reassuring them that they are doing the will of God and when the nuclear wars start Jesus will first take them to heaven during the RAPTURE. The next group c) I would call well informed part of the very wealthy ruling elite. They are used to getting their way. They have always resented paying any taxes and do not believe in social security, medicare, any sort of government transfer payments at all to help the weary working class that they have purposely declared war on. They have no qualms whats so ever taking government money (corporate welfare) to run their own business. These people are true sociopaths incapable of empathy or conscois. In fact they veiw most of humanity in comtempt and are actively trying to depopulate the world from what they refer to us as eaters. wasting the planets resources. Henrey Kissinger, (who is presently an adviser to the current President Bush) is a staunch supporter of depopulation. Google the word depopulation and see for yourself.
So these are the wing nuts we are up against. They also just happen to own all of the mainstream media, T.V. all major newspapers radio and are trying right now to restrict our access to the web. The excuses will be either child porn , terror activity, money laundering, whatever.Just know these forces are powerfull and wealthy and they hate us...and democracy...Mary.

2007-02-23 09:27:35 · answer #6 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 1 0

Excellent question. I read answers to questions daily, and rarely, are the questions even properly addressed! I read alot of support for Bush...but without any real explanation. As far as I can see...its all about blind party support...and nothing whatsoever to do with considered thought. And, by the way, that also goes for the Dems.

2007-02-23 08:44:33 · answer #7 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 4 2

the image of bush sells to america because he panders to the lowest common denominator. Appeals to base ideas and feelings, no depth, no details of what his words, ideas, plans, mean. Cowboy, macho image loved by the masses.

American mass media also a big part of the image, most do not do in depth reporting of issues, its all about getting the most viewers with 10 second sound bites and headlines. Presentation of news very vanilla, not a well rounded presentation of all sides

2007-02-23 08:43:59 · answer #8 · answered by onlinedreamer 3 · 3 2

Bush's plan is to blame the next president for losing the war in Iraq.

2007-02-23 08:42:39 · answer #9 · answered by egg_zaktly 3 · 4 2

They want to have his baby's

2007-02-23 08:57:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers