George W's War (301 hits)
Category: Politics -> IraqRating: -1.06 on 11 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <suburbanator350.at.hotmail.com> (View user info) at 2008-07-20 02:27:11 EDT
No one likes war. War is a horrific, bloody and expensive affair.
Sending our men and women into battle to perhaps die or be maimed is an
unconscionable thought.
Yet some wars need to be waged, and someone needs to lead. The citizenry
and Congress are often ambivalent or largely opposed to any given war.
It's up to our leader to convince them. That's why we call the leader "Commander in Chief."
George W.'s war was no different. There was lots of resistance to it.
Many in Congress were vehemently against the idea. The Commander in Chief
had to lobby for legislative approval.
Along with supporters, George W. used the force of his convictions, the
power of his title and every ounce of moral persuasion he could muster to
rally support. He had to assure Congress and the public that the war was
morally justified, winnable and affordable. Congress eventually came
around and voted overwhelmingly to wage war.
George W. then lobbied foreign governments for support. But in the end,
only one European nation helped us. The rest of the world sat on its
hands and watched.
After a few quick victories, things started to go bad. There were many
dark days when all the news was discouraging. Casualties began to mount.
It became obvious that our forces were too small. Congress began to drag
its feet about funding the effort.
Many who had voted to support the war just a few years earlier were
beginning to speak against it and accuse the Commander in Chief of
misleading them. Many critics began to call him incompetent, an idiot and
even a liar. Journalists joined the negative chorus with a vengeance, reporting on the many problems our troops were having and neglecting to publish any positive stories about American progress in the battle.
As the war entered its fourth year, the public began to grow weary of
the conflict and the casualties. George W.'s popularity plummeted. Yet
through it all, he stood firm, supporting the troops and endorsing the
struggle.
Without his unwavering support, the war would have surely ended, then
and there, in overwhelming and total defeat.
At this darkest of times, George W began to make some changes. More troops
were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals
installed. Congress was skeptical and the journalists predicted a humiliating defeat, regardless of the "surge" in new troops.
Then, unexpectedly and gradually, things began to improve. Now it was the enemy that appeared to be growing weary of the lengthy conflict and losing support. Victories began to come and hope returned.
Many critics in Congress and the press said the improvements were just George W.'s good luck. The progress, they said, would be temporary. He knew, however, that in warfare good fortune counts.
Then, in the unlikeliest of circumstances and perhaps the most historic example of military luck, the enemy blundered and was resoundingly defeated. After six long years of war, the Commander in Chief basked in a most hard-fought victory.
So on that historic day, Oct. 19, 1781, in a place called Yorktown , a satisfied George Washington sat upon his white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War. Congress and the country declared him a hero.
User Reviews
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-07-20 23:56:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I haven't been in the Uberhood for over two years for this very reason, too many of you are closed minded and unwilling to accept someone else's ideas and opinions.
___________
this isn't http://www.igiveashitaboutpolitics.com
you deserve a -2 for the single fact that this is copied and pasted with no credit given to the original author. suck it up and go back into another 2 year hiatus.
Submitted by Otter (user info) at 2008-07-20 15:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It's funny how some of you monkeys see the "George W" and immediatly give a negative two with out reading the post, or giving any kind of explanation as to why you're giving the negative two.
Also, no where in this article is there being made a comparison between President Washington and President Bush, you just naturally assume, and immediatly go into closed minded liberal mode.
No, I didn't write this, nor did I imply that I had, but that shouldn't make a difference on whether the article is good or not.
I haven't been in the Uberhood for over two years for this very reason, too many of you are closed minded and unwilling to accept someone else's ideas and opinions. Last year I was at the Denver People's Fair and came across a young lady hold ing a sign reading "Impeach Bush." I asked her if she'd like to talk about that stament for a moment, she said yes, but all I got from her was yelling interuptions and an unwillingness to listen to what I had to say. I told her that since she was unwilling to hear me out that the conversation wasn't worth having, to which she replied that I was walking away because I couldn't defend my hero. First off, I do not love President Bush. I don't think he is the greatest president this great country has ever had, but I don't feel he is the worst either. He is not my hero. Secondly, I walked away from the conversation because the woman would not show me the same respect by listening to me that I showed her. That's the same crap I had to put up with from my ex-wife, but at least I was getting laid every night.
Before you respond to a political post, you folks really need to think about what is being said. If you wrote a post convincing me that Sen. Obama is the next messiah, as some seem to hink he is, I would read it with an open mind, and offer my opinion if some of the "facts" that you might include are wrong, but I will never belittle you for having an opinion.
And for those of you are inevitably going to say that I am butt-hurt because somebody gave my work a negative two, I don't really care, that you didn't like the post, but if your going to give me a negative review, or any other poster for that matter, at least have the courtesy to explain why you didn't like the post, rather than just writing, "This Sucks!" It shows a real lack of maturity and creativity if you can't give an responce better than that.
Also, I know that some conservatives have been known to be rude as well, but it has been my experiance that they are more willing to listen that the liberals.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-07-20 10:14:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Now let's see...
The war fought by a conservative Christian-supremacy leader who got his job through influence with important people rather than general support of the populace (hint hint: his popularity wasn't high even WHEN he was elected) was for oil and for the joy of fucking with the politics of a small country, which the USA has been doing for 50 years at least.
The war fought in 1776 was fought by white, rich slaveowners who were pissed at the British for making them less rich, and who managed, through their indeniable power and influence, to get most of the general citizenry on their side. After using their untrained and shittily-equipped army to fight horrendously outnumbered British soldiers (20,000 regulars and 230,000 militia against 12,000 regulars) and managed to scrape through a surrender from British troops after they took as many defeats as victories.
Actually, I think he's right - they ARE similar. Identical, in fact - both waged to make rich men richer.
Here's my breakdown of the rating:
plagiarism -2
you are a noob -2
thinking George W Bush was anything BUT a moron -2
for the hell of it -2
getting facts wrong -2
Submitted by Banjo (user info) at 2008-07-20 08:37:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Auto -2 George W
Submitted by EmissionImpossible (user info) at 2008-07-20 05:11:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
nerd below
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2008-07-20 04:28:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
cock off, cock.
Submitted by myshit (user info) at 2008-07-20 04:09:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by myshit (user info) at 2008-07-20 04:08:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/916395-George-W-s-War
is this copy and pasted or did you write the original?
I'm sitting on the fence until I have an answer.
Submitted by FilledwithHate (user info) at 2008-07-20 03:18:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Comparing the worthless and useless war in in Iraq to the War of the Revolution is dishonest and ridiculous. Motivation, justification, and purpose matter. The current George W is the most unpopular President ever because he deserve the title, no other reason.
This post is jut tired, heavily circulated bulkmail from moronic dittoheads.
Submitted by Unabonger (user info) at 2008-07-20 03:01:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
oh wow you got me there lolz.
Submitted by PepsiCoke (user info) at 2008-07-20 02:39:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.eons.com/groups/topic/916395-George-W-s-War
Excellent trolling. Kudos.