• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Georges War

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
No one likes war. War is a horrific affair, bloody and expensive. 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.

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.

I will show the rest later.
 

Mugquomp

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
616
Location
the 20th Hole


I didn't actually read that very carefully, but it seems like you're just spewing the same rhetoric as in some previous topic that I remember you making about the War on Terror.
 

GoldShadow

Marsilea quadrifolia
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
14,463
Location
Location: Location
I think it's ridiculous to even call it a "war".

Fareed Zakaria wrote an excellent article on this that appeared in the last issue of Newsweek (I'm not usually a big fan of Newsweek, but I am a fan of Fareed Zakaria, who is very intelligent and insightful).
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
Here is the continuition of the first post...

At this darkest of times, he began to make some changes. More troops were added and trained. Some advisers were shuffled, and new generals installed.

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 beautiful white horse and accepted the surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the Revolutionary War.
 

Mugquomp

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Messages
616
Location
the 20th Hole
Read carefully is right. You can spin history however you like; recontextualizing stories to comment upon modern day issues as old as humanity. Just look towards any old text. The Bible and the Qur'an are full of examples of this.

But read it carefully, to be sure you see how the facts are distorted, manipulated, and spun to favor a particular interpretation of past events.

Is this not what this story does?

And I still stand by the stance in my earlier post that you're just repeating the same rhetoric from this thread. Although there seems to have been some editing going on, because not all that I remember being there is still present. Another example of spinning the past?

Sorry if I come off sounding like I'm trying to attack you. I'm not. I'm just trying to provide another viewpoint from a fellow patriot.
 

Johnthegalactic

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 19, 2008
Messages
1,155
Location
None of your business
Read carefully is right. You can spin history however you like; recontextualizing stories to comment upon modern day issues as old as humanity. Just look towards any old text. The Bible and the Qur'an are full of examples of this.

But read it carefully, to be sure you see how the facts are distorted, manipulated, and spun to favor a particular interpretation of past events.

Is this not what this story does?

And I still stand by the stance in my earlier post that you're just repeating the same rhetoric from this thread. Although there seems to have been some editing going on, because not all that I remember being there is still present. Another example of spinning the past?

Sorry if I come off sounding like I'm trying to attack you. I'm not. I'm just trying to provide another viewpoint from a fellow patriot.
I never edited anything in this topic, and haven't been messing with my posts in earlier topics.
That above posts are not my work anyway, I was just wanted the pleasure of seeing people decide that the comments were on George W. Bush rather than George W(ashington).
 
Top Bottom