Can anyone imagine.....

If Bush were President during an event like the Cuban missile crisis, does anybody think civilization would have stood a chance? With their lack of concern or respect for pretty much the entire world body, does anybody think they could have resolved the crisis with diplomacy? Or would only cockroaches (and Keith Richards) be walking the Earth today?

Of course civilization would have stood a chance. Bush isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear annihilation. It would possibly go a little rougher or take a little longer, but any president knows that setting something off that could possibly destroy the world is just not the answer.

I hope this thread dies quickly so that 27jd cant suck up points for such an ignorant analogy....(yes i just gave you points...LOL)

27jd, why do you think the cuban missile crisis was the CLOSEST point ever for going into a conflict with the soviets...

Its because Kennedy DIDNT back away, he stood up for the USA and its interests KNOWING then that the Soviets might try to run the blocade and that shooting would start...
this was a very real potential and he knew it...it was a HUGE risk
far far greater than Bush attacking Iraq ever was.

27jd says,
It is the Presidents job to look out for American interests FIRST weather or not it peeves other countries off or not.
While diplomacy IS a PART of the tools available to a president, so is a millitary option...one would be preffered, but this doesnt rule out the use of the other.

The point of the Cuban crissis AND Iraq is that diplomacy will only get you so far, and at some point, in order to defend American interests, any President may have to consider the millitary option...again regardless of what some other nations might wish we might/might not do.
Even up to the point of knowing that both we and our enemies will be vaporized....otherwise, at what point do you allow America to be threatened and let it slide? There is NEVER a point where this capitulation should occur as then our enemy wins and we are what...not America any more.

George W. Bush is incapable of crisis management, he lacks the fundamental leadership and diplomatic skills to ensure peaceful procedures in difficult times.

May i remind you of the totally unwarranted attack on a peaceful and progressive nation like Iraq ?

Bush has no brain, he relies on Fox News and similar far-right news outlets to paint a presidency which is an abominable failure (more people hate the US than before, tens of thousands of innocent children dead, a deficit that brings America on it's knees, total mess in Iraq) into green flowering fields, what a farce.

Bush has no education and no personal skills. He's a billionaire connected to the ben Laden family, and that (ben Laden's capital) is his only asset, ah, and of course the fact that jesus told him to become president, which earns him the fanatic support of a mentally very sick christian radical right-wingers.

Whenever he did something in his life, he failed (oil enterprise etc.). So he would also fail a difficult crisis, as he failed 9/11. Instead of uniting the world in a war against terror, he united the world against the united states and it's megalomaniac foreign policy. You can't fail the situation more.

I wouldn't go so far as to call Saddam's Iraq "peaceful and progressive"...

Still,



Very true, but in this case, the diplomacy option was not fully utilized, and I don't mean the diplomacy to Iraq, but moreso the diplomacy with the UN and it's members.... He basically told the world (and the American people) to piss off...by first imposing the deadline and ultimatum. While the war waged, many (including myself) were behind it though (as I suspected I knew the ulterior motives for the war and what the true goals were...which were achieved by the way)... Still though, the public foundation (WMD) for the war proved to be a bust (personally, if I was Dubya, I would have had them planted, but he KNEW he'd be inept in it, so he didn't try it....much)



A fair analysis....

Eeeeexcellent (rubbing my hands together like Mr. Burns)....my plan to suck up points is working perfectly!



Ummm, because IT WAS!



Did I even mention Iraq? Please, show me where I made that "ignorant analogy", I was merely asking that if Bush was president during that magnitude of a crisis, if people think he would be able to handle it peacefully, or if he would handle it "cowboy style" with guns a blazin. YOU made that analogy, and Iraq was NOT a crisis of that magnitude.
In your pathetic haste to defend Bush at all costs (as always), you identified an "analogy" that didn't even exist. And I'M ignorant?



Well, genius, it seems to me it would be GREATLY in Americas interest not to peeve the ENTIRE world, like we have pretty much done, you feed the stereotype of Americans being self-absorbed, and lacking concern for the rest of the world, we are HUMAN BEINGS on EARTH first, then Americans, our country, while great, is not the center of the universe.

What are you smoking?

Iraq under Saddam Heussein was a nightmare for everyone. He was a bloodthirsty tyrant who attacked his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait, and threatened Turkey and Saudi Arabia), destroyed entire towns and killed everyone in them on multiple occasions within Iraq, and and even went as far as to half-heartedly attempt a genocide of the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq. He also paid good money (like, $2500 per person, I think) to Palestinians who killed Israelis (military or civilians, he didn't care). At the height of his power (before the Persian Gulf War of 1991), he had plans to conquer the Middle East, makings its oil supply his own, then hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapons program he was trying to develop. The guy was basically the Arab version of Hitler. You call that "peaceful" and "progressive"? I don't! You make it sound as if Heussein was some benevolent king, handing out free food and homes to his people, just sitting around minding his own business when the big, bad U.S. came in and took the poor guy's palaces from him...