quote:

---

Originally written by mortification8:

Whoa! Hold on, I missed something 'back a bit in the thread.

There were less than 50,000 U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War. Where is this number of 200K coming from? Did I just miss something important?

Big difference between 50K and 200K. In fact, the two bloodiest wars in the history of the U.S., the Civil War and WW2, are the only wars that enter the 200K territory.

Some perspective on wars for each generation of Americans (figues listed are actual combat-related deaths, not counting accidents, died later of wounds, and so forth):

Revolutionary war: < 5K
War of 1812: < 3K
Mexican War: < 2K
Civil War: 140K
Spanish-American War: < 1K
WW1: 54K
WW2: 292K
Korea: 34K
Vietnam: 48K

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Aarrow Swift:

TM/Thuryl - Yeah, I think I understand what you're saying. It started to get away from my original point that making little unfounded insults against him does noone any good.
I agree, but for different reasons. I consider him genuinely evil...

And, the poor image of him that has been created isn't really all his fault. If he has no major bearing on decisions and his cabinet really does do everything, then they're the ones responsible for the war in Iraq, not Bush.
He was most certainly in favor of it, and has been its greatest spokesman so far, esp. abroad.

They're ones responsible for the faultering (or growing) economy. It seems to me that most of why people say nasty things about him is because the economy isn't doing good or "no blood for oil" or something like that. His cabinet is responsible for these decisions, too. Thus, all these pithy insults against him shouldn't really be directed at him anyway.
I have plenty of problems with Rumsfeld & co. I don't think anyone likes them, though, which is why Bush gets picked on.


X - I suppose Vietnam was a cakewalk compared Iraq, right? 211,471 dead. I call that a pretty pointless war, with more than a few more dead than Iraq. When Bush has killed over 200,000 Americans, I might concede that he is a bad president.
Are you implying Johnson was a bad president? He was merely acting on a commitment made by a previous one; his social programs did a LOT of good, even if Vietnam did happen.
Also, your qualifiers for 'bad president' are far too low. I consider most Republicans since Harding to have been bad presidents. (Exceptions: Bush, who didn't behave too badly, and Ford, whose biggest act of mischief was pardoning Nixon.) If you care to demand an explanation, I'd be happy to break it down for you.

Until then, we've had worse.
You can't tell right now, can you? The future is murky now because next year is an election year. Watch for the saber to start rattling again in 2005; Iraq is small potatoes. Look at North Korea, Syria, Iran...

And Bush is not stupid. Despite what you may have heard, we don't elect completely unqualified idiots to the most powerful single position in our government.
Of course. We elect people on their acumen and political background. *snort*
You ARE aware that the majority of Presidential elections since Bush/Dukakhis have been over-elaborate popularity contests, right?

Not to say they don't make stupid decisions, but they're not stupid. Incoherent, perhaps. He's not the greatest public speaker in the world.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

---