i cannot even begin to imagine what would have happened. with the way he is handling the war in Iraq right now, it doesnt seem like we can possibly pull off any sort of "victory" the thing that really scares me is the chance that something like WWII would happen again, and we were stuck with some of the worst leadership in the history of the country. i think its about time the US went back to having at least slightly competent leaders. George W. Bush is our BIGGEST national security threat.
Imagine what would happen if Bush was president during WWII
- Thread starter theMan
- Start date
WW2 and Iraq aren't even in the same class of war. One we fought a standing army that we could see and kill, and in Iraq we are fighting insurgents disguised as civilians, there is only so much we can do. It's got nothing to do with Bush...except for the fact he got us there.
yes, but just think about the whole level of competence he seems to have. if there was a war like WWII, i cant imagine how he would respond, if at all. and, not to mension that we hardly have a military any more.
I don't see how a historical comparison is at all relevant here. It's like asking what if Lincoln were president during WW2. It doesn't mean a thing.
Ali or Tyson?
Tyson in his prime would wipe the floor with Ali. Not to say I like Tyson, but he would win for the same reason that the 2005 Texans would blow out the 1972 Dolphins.
Tyson in his prime would wipe the floor with Ali. Not to say I like Tyson, but he would win for the same reason that the 2005 Texans would blow out the 1972 Dolphins.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Bush and Hitler share a tendency to be overly verbose and in overstating the case for any action.
Bush's daddy was just the opposite---when Saddam grabbed Kuwait GHB said it would not stand
and quietly set up an international coalition of the willing to back himself---while Saddam promised the mother of all battles---similar to Kaddafies line of death------when the time came for action verbal bull crap didn't last long-----Saddam was out of Kuwait within a few weeks.
All GWB does is promise victory when he can't deliver it------the difference between a dangerous braggart and a President who know what needs done and does it.----so much for genetics----this fruit did fall far from the tree and sunny boy could not amount to a pimple on his father's posterior.
GWB may have won the 04 election with a bare majority and is backed by the world's most powerful military-----but that little boy who cried wolf has zero ability to inspire or lead a world coalition against a common danger like Hitler-------that status is reserved for truly great Presidents.-----men who are long on action and not much given to bragging.
Bush's daddy was just the opposite---when Saddam grabbed Kuwait GHB said it would not stand
and quietly set up an international coalition of the willing to back himself---while Saddam promised the mother of all battles---similar to Kaddafies line of death------when the time came for action verbal bull crap didn't last long-----Saddam was out of Kuwait within a few weeks.
All GWB does is promise victory when he can't deliver it------the difference between a dangerous braggart and a President who know what needs done and does it.----so much for genetics----this fruit did fall far from the tree and sunny boy could not amount to a pimple on his father's posterior.
GWB may have won the 04 election with a bare majority and is backed by the world's most powerful military-----but that little boy who cried wolf has zero ability to inspire or lead a world coalition against a common danger like Hitler-------that status is reserved for truly great Presidents.-----men who are long on action and not much given to bragging.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Only becasue you're all focused on attacking the OP instead of discussing the question. I think it could be a quite interesting, albeit speculative discussion, to consider how other Presidents might have handled a given historical situation given what we understand about their attitudes, agendas, values, past experiences, etc. For example, would a WWII Bush be willing to tell Americans they had to sacrifice to support the war effort, or would he cut taxes and tell everyone to go shopping as he did for the war on Iraq? Would he be willing to commit the overwhelming manpower for major assaults, or would he avoid such risks because he feared political fallout? Would he have partnered with other countries, sharing command, or would he have taken us in alone to keep control?
As you might guess, I personally agree with the OP. I think Bush's style and political agenda would have been disastrous for us in WWII ... just as they have been in Iraq.
1972 Dolphins: Average size of offensive line: 6-21/2, 253. Average size of defensive line: 6-41/2, 258.
The tone set by the original post is not one of a serious question. You could pick any president and say that they would have been disasterous in WW2. All this thread has done is create a place where people like "Lemon Law" can post nonsensical rantings about the current administration.
I'd say Bush would do much better with a larger, but in many ways simpler, conflict like WWII.
The Bush adminstration's mistakes were:
1. Picking the wrong target (Iraq) when it posed no danger to the US
In WWII the enemies were clearly the original Axis, so it would be hard for him to mess this up.
2. Not using enough troops to do the job right
Bush listened to Rummy about the "new army," agile and undermanned, as the nifty-keen way to wage war. Back in WWII no one would be filling his head with this BS and massive force would still be the order of the day.
3. Not planning for the aftermath
I suppose he could still screw this one up, but with the massive force and full troop deployment from point 2 he wouldn't have the Iraq situation of only having 1/2 - 1/4 of the tropps deployed that he really needed to keep order.
The Bush adminstration's mistakes were:
1. Picking the wrong target (Iraq) when it posed no danger to the US
In WWII the enemies were clearly the original Axis, so it would be hard for him to mess this up.
2. Not using enough troops to do the job right
Bush listened to Rummy about the "new army," agile and undermanned, as the nifty-keen way to wage war. Back in WWII no one would be filling his head with this BS and massive force would still be the order of the day.
3. Not planning for the aftermath
I suppose he could still screw this one up, but with the massive force and full troop deployment from point 2 he wouldn't have the Iraq situation of only having 1/2 - 1/4 of the tropps deployed that he really needed to keep order.
Considering the strong parallels between the way the Bush administration is trampling on our Constitution and trying to trivialize our civil rights and the way Hitler and his nazis acted before WW II, it's possible he might have tried to form an alliance with them.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Good points. I agree, at least in part. WWII was a simpler war in a way, and at least from the 21st century, it seems like it was much more black and white, with good and evil clearly defined. (I'm still confident Bush would have screwed it up, simply because that's been his primary talent his whole life.) In any case, it would be interesting to see how Americans would have reacted had WWII been moved to today, specifically with current communications technology putting all the gory details in everyone's home in real time. Would America have continued to support the war if Abu Ghraib-type stories started to circulate, or if they learned FDR had deceived them about Germany or Japan?
Imagine if you left-wingers tried half the bullshvt you do now during WWII, like aiding the enemy and trying to pass laws to prevent our National Security services from protecting us, as well as limiting the powers of a President during War Time?
Our biggest national security threat is terrorists, pure and simple. Right through the borders which remain a constant problem. Not far behind would be people like yourself who seek to constantly undermine W while we are fighting a war.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Oh noes! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Protect me daddy Georgie! Don't let the boogeyman get me!
There are hundreds of things that kill more Americans each year than terrorism. Funny how you're only willing to shred the Constitution for the one that matches your fascist politcal agenda. Unfortunately for you, most Americans aren't willing to sacrifice America's founding ideals just because you're wetting your pants in terror. How about you get a grip and stop treating the Constitution as if it's your personal supply of Depends.
You know, we're not just trying to "undermine W" for the fun of it. You're right, there are threats to our national security, and Bush is doing a terrible job of fighting them. A lot of what he does makes us less safe, less free, or both. Whatever problems arise from fighting him on national security issues, they are far less than the problems that would come from just letting him do whatever he wanted.
My biggest problem with people like you isn't that I have a different political viewpoint than you, it's that you truly believe that you, and only you, are motivated by doing the right thing. It's not that righties and lefties disagree about how to fight terrorism, it's that righties want to fight terrorism and lefties just want to be against Bush, or help the enemy, or whatever. The idea that a lot of us think Bush is doing for our security and freedoms what Godzilla did to Japan has simply never entered your head, that liberals are doing what they do because they believe it is in the best interests of their country to do so.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 17K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter