Bush is an idiot, huh?

George W. Bush is a very smart politician.  He has a good understanding of the world and people.  Instead of considering him stupid, perhaps you might consider these explanations for his comments:

His talk is covered and broadcast widely, and is much more consequential than ramblings by private individuals on an Internet board.

He is responsible for making sure that the United States wins its war with the minimum loss of American lives.  Perhaps he is so stupid as to think that not going out of his way to antagonize neutral Muslims might actually result in less American bloodshed.

Perhaps he thinks that Iraq is surrounded by only Muslim nations, that he needs their assistance to stage troops to attack Iraq, and that his statements might help bring them onboard by reassuring them that he isn't planning war on all Muslims.

Even if he does not personally believe what he says about Muslims being peaceful, perhaps he thinks that the lie is worth it if he helps to save American lives.

In other words, perhaps he is acting like a statesman who is putting the interests of his country in front of his right to say anything counterproductive and inflammatory, even if personally satisfying.  Remember, in World War II, we had to form an alliance with Josef Stalin - someone immensely vicious and evil.  Saying that Muslims are peaceful is a pittance in comparison.

Speak softly and carry a big stick.  That works for me.  It also probably works for the grunts in the field who will remain alive because their President had the foresight to make allies and friends instead of just pissing people off for personal satisfaction.

Silence, heed thy name.

Time for a little history lesson and some comparisons.  

Islam:
632 A.D.?  I think it was about this time that Islam started its spread from Arabia.  It didn't happen peacefully.  The Koran calls for all obedient Muslims to spread the faith, by force if necessary.  The invasion of France was finally halted at Tours in 732 by Charles Martel (The Hammer).  They ruled most of Spain for the next 700 years until Spain was finally liberated in 1462 by King Ferdinand.

During that time, Muslim armies also attacked from the east, conquering Constantinople in 1453, the Balkans thereafter and in the last invasion of Europe, beseiging Vienna, Austria in 1683.

I'd call that a good thousand years of attacks against non-Muslim Europe.  Initially, Christians and Jews were allowed to live peacefully in the conquered lands without a requirement to convert.  Jews and Christians were considered "People of the Book (Bible)" and not polytheistic pagans, who had the choice of convert or die.  Frankly, I don't know when they changed and gave Christians the choice of convert or die.  I believe it happened during the crusades and could well have been a response to the same ultimatum by the crusaders.

There are major differences between the crusades and the Islamic invasions.  The crusades were directed solely against Palestine and primarily Jerusalem.  This was the Holy Land.  There was never a plan or attempt to conquer all Islamic nations or convert all of them.

What about Christians.  Yes, we have the inquisition.  That was directed mainly against other Christians and has been repudiated by the Catholic church.  Abortion bombers/terrorists?  While they have some support among Christians, 99% of those who oppose abortion also oppose the anti-abortion bombings and killings, have been quick to publicly state the same and have assisted law enforcement in bringing the terrorists to justice.  The inquisition is old history, the anti-abortion terrorism is recent.  Compare that to Islamic terrorism and you'll find that only a tiny percentage of Muslim politicians, clerics or even ordinary citizens will condemn it and actively seek to end it.

The Islamic expansion in Europe, Asia and Africa was stopped by either extreme distance from the source or military superiority.  The Islamic culture has essentially stagnated since the 1500's.  It is not a religion of peace unless you are a Muslim.  While there is much to admire, on this topic, the Koran requires Muslims to convert the entire world, by fire and sword if necessary.  Those who claim that they are a peaceful religion and just want to get along aren't following they're own teachings.  Those who do want to carry on the jihad are stopped only by military inability.

The post that started this whole thing said Bush was an idiot.  I don't think he is.  He's just a politician who is trying to avoid biting off more than he can chew at this time.  Lets take care of Osama, Al Quaida and Iraq first.  Iran, Saudi Arabia and the rest can wait their turn.  Its like eating an elephant.  You have to do it one bite at a time.

Bush is probably not an idiot, but that’s probably scarier than the idea that he is.  Characterizing “private individuals” speech on an internet board as inconsequential next to a politician is a statist-leaning politico-worship that’s pretty surprising in a forum like this.  That’s the whole scam politicians push—the idea that they are smarter and more deserving to be listened to than the “stupid” individuals. That’s why they should be in charge, and we should happily forfeit our liberty to do their wise bidding.

Responsible for winning a war with minimum loss of American lives? Why not stay out of the war he’s starting altogether? I doubt we “had to form an alliance with Josef Stalin”. That was a choice, and a comparison that no “ally” should appreciate, Arab or not. The statement also presumes we had to be talked into a war for European interests.

Speak softly and carry a big stick is one thing, but offensively bashing people in the head with the stick for arbitrary reasons is quite another.  Many more grunts in the field would remain alive if the President had the foresight to not just piss on a country for his personal satisfaction because he could get away with it.

†/

hopefully, that's more of a polital statement than a personal belief.

Looks like we picked up a Delta Uniform [:K]

The opinions of private individuals on an Internet board are just as valid as those of George W. Bush.  But the world doesn't pay constant attention to them and draw conclusions that affect the security of the United States.  They do pay attention to what the President says, and parse his words and meanings.  That is the way the world is, and that is the way the President has to play the game.  This is a simple statement of fact, not some sort of sentiment that we should shut up and kowtow to the President.  We shouldn't.  But what he says and the words that he uses have real and immediate consequences in the real world.



I take it that you are referring to Iraq.  You will actually find me halfway in agreement with you.  I am still a little skeptical about [b]why[/b] we should go to war with Iraq.

guns762 wrote:

"He's just playing politics. You don't want to actually start a holy war with all of Islam do you? "

Why not?  They declared war on US.  I have no problem accomodating them!

Just as the total populations of Japan nor Germany supported WWII, they got their civilian asses smashed anyway.  Failure to whack their leaders when needed resulted in MILLIONS of civilian casualties.  Moslems should learn from the past rather than just living in it!  The ghosts of Nagasaki and Hiroshima might have some insight to share.  


Campybob wrote:

""Let's not forget the devout Christians that wrote the founding documents of this country..."

yes...some of them actually 'owned' other human beings, i.e. 'property'.

very, very devout christians there, i'm sure. that god dude sure would be proud of them."

As a matter of fact, slavery was acceptable in the Bible.  It has required later thought to find the practice evil and not in keeping with American ideals of freedom.