The George Bush You Forgot (The Libertarian George Bush Who Was Against Nation Building)

Youtube ^ | Uploaded on Aug 15, 2008 | merrimac290

[x]

Pres. Bush didn't send troops in just to nation-build like Clinton did.

Pres. Bush sent troops in for national security reasons.

That's the theory, or the justification, or the excuse, but so far as I can see it really doesn't hold up in reality.

The idea that we were just going to go into Iraq and immediately leave was naïve, whether politicians or ordinary voters believed it, and the politicians ought to have known better.

[sickoflibs]

I remember, Not the last time either.

a long painful episode.

[what's up]

That's the theory, or the justification, or the excuse, but so far as I can see it really doesn't hold up in reality

I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you think Saddam wasn't making everyone think he had WMD?

Was he not shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone, abusing food for oil, didn't he use chemical WMD on his people, wasn't he toying with the inspectors?

Is it your opinion that someone who had invaded Iraq to try to get dominion in the Gulf and was now terrorizing the world should have continued his rebellion forever?

[discostu]

Someone taking over Afghanistan is what led to the problem in the first place. We helped them rebel against Russia then walked away, leaving them in chaos for a decade, until finally the Taliban took over and made it a terrorist safe haven. Nation building serves a purpose, helps turn an enemy into an ally. Look at the difference between the ends of WWI and WWII.

[x]

I don't know exactly what the situation was at the time or how many of those things were still going on at the time.

Most of what I've seen suggests that the "imminent threat" rhetoric didn't reflect the actual situation at the point when we went in.

My point, though, was that regime change was one of our goals for going in, and regime change involves nation building.

Washington Times article: Bush a convert to nation building

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

Someone taking over Afghanistan is what led to the problem in the first place.

Right. We helped the Muslims chase the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Then the Muslims based in Afghanistan attack New York city. Are you incapable of learning anything. Let your enemy spend resources dealing with lunatics.

[what's up]

I don't know exactly what the situation was at the time or how many of those things were still going on at the time.

Well, they were all going on at the time. Saddam was flouting the UN and the US. Almost 100% of the leaders (including Democrats) thought Saddam had WMD and was close to a weapon.

You would have sat back and done nothing if you believed Saddam had WMD?

Saddam could not be allowed to continue to terrorize the world ad infinitum. The US had no other choice.

[discostu]

I apparently learned a lot more than you. Our enemies and the lunatics are who took over Afghanistan. If we’d have stuck around, helped out, built some schools, found some good places for McDonalds the place wouldn’t have been ripe for take over by the Taliban. Again, look at WWI and WWII, abandoning a place just lets a fresh set of bad guys take over, build the nation and it stops being fertile ground to grow enemies.