Skip to comments.The George Bush You Forgot (The Libertarian George Bush Who Was Against Nation Building)
Posted on 11/18/2013 11:36:19 AM PST by Skeez
Youtube Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9SOVzMV2bc&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL2A98BEEA82D96E4E
See link. Short video from 2000 campaign. Unbelievable.
that was before 9/11. that would change anyone.
He was always into nation destruction.
That’s the result of open borders with an enemy nation that has 30 or 40 million colonizers to spare.
He had no problem letting them in.
Pat Buchanan writes about something like this in his books and of course, I agree with Pat.
Pres. Bush sent troops in for national security reasons.
BS. When you are attacked by a third world gang, you sink their navy, flatten their airfields, and smash their armor. Then you drop small arms to the oppressed and let them sort out how to build their nation. With our naval and air capacity, we do it at an arms length, no troops on the ground. No trillions to rebuild.
Do that once, and you will not see another attempt upon us for a generation. It's cost effective. It commands respect.
Tried it. Still doesn’t work.
That he got stuck with doing it doesn’t mean he thought it was a good thing. It was the least crappy of many crappy alternatives. I didn’t like it either.
being rational about GWB always stokes the “conservatives” that are suffering from a more severe case of BDS than ever plagued a liberal.
Yup....as long as no neighbor hostile to us is sitting there ready to unite with a large minority and take over all of the militarily wrecked nations resources and expands its borders to allow it easy access to your allies...then that becomes really, really stupid.
Even more stupid when that neighbor’s primary military form is asymmetrical warfare.
Even more stupid when that neighbors primary military form is asymmetrical warfare.
Real snarky. Like we would miss Afghanistan if someone took it over.
That guy would have been a great president.
If communist China took over and began to threaten India you might miss having an independent Afghanistan.
I had figured you were talking about Iraq...since that’d already happened to Afghanistan, which was why it had become even more of a cesspool than it was a few decades ago.
Yes, he could have been a much president had he not gotten bogged down in the feckless task of “nation building”.
Yes, he could have been a much better president had he not gotten bogged down in the feckless task of nation building.
“If communist China took over and began to threaten India you might miss having an independent Afghanistan.”
Ha HA. I don’t think anyone has shown how to “take over” Afghanistan.
The Moghuls did it quite successfully. And from there they were able to control India.
“Timur’s armies caused great devastation and are estimated to have caused the deaths of 17 million people.”
Thats a quote from Wikipedia regarding afghans histroy. I guess if country wanted it that bad...
The fact that they suffered 17 million deaths indicates that they didn't want it but were forced into it.
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.
I remember, Not the last time either.
a long painful episode.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.