So is selectionist history. Bush Sr.'s people determined an invasion of Iraq would be costly and protracted, they essential predicted what is happening now would have happened then. Furthermore the UN hadn't mandated such an action, and seeing as at the time we were still trying to at least make the appearance of playing by the rules. Clinton's people came up with the same scenario.

Further more Obama was speaking about how instead of 'going it alone' we garnered the support of the international community, including many Muslim nations, rather than eliciting the with us or against us style of 'diplomacy'.

I should say I don't believe it was only the Highway of Death that lead to the end of the Gulf War. I'm sure there were other factors; mainly poor political opinion being detrimental to the administration's reelection. Still, I wouldn't go so far as to say H.W. Bush "did an excellent job" in the Gulf War. I know there are a lot of Dems on this site, and any anti-Obama video is bad and any anti-McCain video is good, but you have to admit Obama is wrong, no?

I'll upvote it, even though I believe the truth about the Gulf War is closer to what Crosswords described:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war#The_end_of_active_hostilities

The coalition would have more than likely fallen apart if we had ousted Hussein in 1991, and we would have also been exceeding the provisions of the UN mandate that authorized force ONLY to expel the Iraqi army from Kuwait. Back then our presidents still occasionally gave a shit about world opinion. Also Bush Sr. knew even then that occupation would be a costly venture. Still, it is worth mentioning how Bush encouraged the Shi'ites to rise up against Hussein, only to watch them get slaughtered without raising a finger to support them.

So did Bush the elder do an "excellent job" in the Gulf War? IMHO, no. However I don't think he did a terrible job either. And compared to his son, the elder Bush is positively Founding Father material. But then so is my paperboy.

^They're certainly not the words I would have chosen. Within the context of the speech I would think he meant Bush Sr. did a good job of gathering international support as opposed to the whole thing was a smashing success. If really truly meant that the whole operation was a smashing success with no cock ups, then yes I think he's wrong... and that's the best you're going to get out of me

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I'll upvote it, even though I believe the truth about the Gulf War is closer to what Crosswords described

We don't need your sympathy vote around here, bub! Kidding. We certainly accept all votes, sympathy or otherwise. But, enough about vote whoring, let's get back to the topic at hand.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
So did Bush the elder do an "excellent job" in the Gulf War? IMHO, no. However I don't think he did a terrible job either.

The real question should be "did we need to be there in the first place?" To which, I say no. So, if a president is willing to go abroad and fight wars they have no Constitutional right to fight, then I say they're a terrible president that hold your rights with about as much regard as they hold their wiener when they piss.

"then I say they're a terrible president that hold your rights with about as much regard as they hold their wiener when they piss."

You mean with a gentle hand dedicated to providing the necessary support so as not to make a mess everywhere?

I'm not aware the Constitution says anything about who, how or why we can declare war (on). Just that congress has to approve of it, and though I don't think the first gulf war was officially labeled as a war I'm pretty sure congress approved the actions.

I believe Kuwait, a recognized government, requested help. This is as opposed to Saddam mostly bending to our demands for inspections and cessation of weapon development and then us invading anyways.

As far as the philosophical position goes, I think we should protect our interests and allies around the world in a responsible fashion. Like it or not we are part of an international community and world events do effect us. We tried to stay out of both world wars and we ended up getting sucked in anyways. In the case of the first Gulf War, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and we responded by pushing them out and returning sovereignty to the Kuwait government.

Right now we have a position of irresponsible intervention, Iraq posed little real threat, and what threat they did pose could have been dealt with diplomatically, our our administration's response was to tie an American flag to their erect cock and roll into Iraq, both hands with middle fingers pronounced, astride an Abrams. Rather than serve to stabilize the global climate, its done the exact opposite.

Obama's using the first gulf war for a specific rhetorical purpose: supporting his foreign policy stance of being both smart and tough.

Presidential candidates always have to move to the wing of their party during the primary season, and then to the political center to capture the mainstream vote once they have their party's nomination. I think Obama is doing the latter part exceptionally well, even complimenting Reagan or Bush Sr. sometimes, even though his voting record is very liberal.

I actually find myself nostalgic for the days of Bush Sr. He hired smart people, listened to what they had to say, used his own judgment, and generally made choices that were the right ones for the country, even if they went against his political ideology.

I think that stands in stark contrast to his son's administration, which has pigheadedly followed a radical ideology, the country be damned.

I think Crosswords and KP pretty much said it all about the differences between the two wars. Crosswords even mentioned the erect-cock-flag bit, which I'm sure we'll get pictures of in the history books someday (kind of like the picture of the guys with the flag on Iwo Jima, only more exciting for blankfist and kronosposeidon).

War=Peace
Change=No Change At All

The biggest mistake in the First Gulf War was leaving Saddam in power. The biggest mistake int the current war was knowingly lying about expectations for it. Asked in 1992 about the first gulf war Dick Cheney said "I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country."

All that aside, Iraq was facing 2 scenarios without the current war:
1.Saddam remaining in power.
2.Saddam removed from power internally.

Case 1 was clearly not acceptable. Most argument against the current war is that Saddam was going to be overthrown any ways. That's all fine and good, but can one honestly say Iraq would be more stable after an internal revolt than it is now?

*promote obama's bullshit

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Tuesday, July 15th, 2008 9:54pm PDT - promote requested by kulpims.

>> ^bcglorf:
That's all fine and good, but can one honestly say Iraq would be more stable after an internal revolt than it is now?


God, you're a fucking pig.

Saddam was our guy. He was tricked into invading Kuwait. See April Glaspie. He would have done pretty much anything he was told, other than turn his nation's oil over to the global petroleum concerns.

The Iraqi people did not invite us into their country. We've killed over a million of them and yet, people like you insist this is a good thing.

Obama's wrong.

I don't know why he insists on kissing conservative ass, but it will come back to haunt him.