US Presidents Going to War - Dubya Wrong?

[muskrat89]

The following appeared in a local paper as a letter to the editor.

              Some claim President Bush shouldn‘t have started this war. They complain about his prosecution of it. One person recently claimed Bush was the worst president in U.S. history.

              Let‘s clear up one point: We didn‘t start the war on terror. Try to remember.   It was started by terrorists on 9/11.   Let‘s look at the "worst" president and mismanagement claims.

              FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

              Truman finished that war and started one in Korea.   North Korea never attacked us.   From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,333 per year.

              John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.

              Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of  5,800  per year.

              Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent.   Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden‘s head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.

              In the two years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Lybia, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.

              We lost 600 soldiers, an average of 300 a year. Bush did all this abroad while not allowing another terrorist attack at home.

              Worst president in history? Come on!    
                                         
                     Ã‚

 

[koalorka]

It‘s not about Bush, he‘s a simple person but a good man overall. It‘s about his senior staff, they are the shadowy crowd that come up with policies and doctrines that the US will pursue in their private interests, Bush is a mere messenger to the people, believe me, he‘s got nothing to do with planning or authorizing any interventions. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle came up with Iraq.

Oh, I have to reply to some of that nonsense you posted:

Taliban is far from defeated, currently staging a guerilla counter-offensive.

Al-Qaida doing well. Recruiting at it‘s peak as anti-US sentiments soar.

Muammar Qadafi (Libyan leader) too old to resist US anymore, lost his sense of humour apparently.

Iran making a joke of UN inspectors touring them around cement factories.

North Korea still defiant, ready to nuke Seoul or Yokohama if necessary.

I‘ll agree with taking out Saddam, ******* deserves death by hanging like nazi war criminals - but his removal came a little late..

 

[muskrat89]

It‘s amazing FUBAR, that because that person‘s opinion is different than yours, you deem it nonsense. For most of the points raised, I‘m not even sure there is a definitive answer - just opinions.

Even more amazing is this incredible knack you have for summarizing all of the world‘s problems (or solutions, depending on the thread), regardless of complexity level, into single-sentence statements. I am awestruck.

To consider all of the debates raging around the world, when they could easily be fixed with a 5 minute consultation with yours truly Your phone must be ringing off the hook lol

 

[Enzo]

Muskrat - Just to clarify a point, the Japanese declared war first (apparently to have been delivered to the US administration shortly before the Pearl Harbour attack) and the US then declared war on the Japanese. Hitler, due to treaty with the Japanese then declared war upon the US. (major error, add it to his growing pile) As for Germany never attacking, untrue. U-boats had ravaged shipping off of the eastern seaboard for a few years, targets of opportunity for the most part, US lives and ships can be accounted within that number almost on par in terms of tonnage and cost w/ Pearl. (although primarily merchant as opposed to military losses, etc...)

Just clarifying.

 

[muskrat89]

Enzo - I appreciate that. As stated, that was someone else‘s opinion, as presented in a letter to the editor.

I just like offering something up here and there to help offset the "Bush is a useless idiot" mantra, that some like to chant

 

[Enzo]

I dunno, I‘d say Bush is quite "useful"

 

[RCD]

THE WAR WAS RIGHT.
BUT HIS REASONS WERE WRONG THAT HE TRY TO SELL TO US & THE UN .
THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IT THE FIRST TIME

 

[The_Falcon]

Agreed RECON-MAN, hindsight is 20-20, George H. W. Bush should have removed Saddam in 92.