As opposed to Coulter, who “debates” by calling liberals objectively pro-terrorist, not Real Americans, and many other things.
Besides, it’s the liberals that are dumb. Dick Armey says so.
I am neither especially liberal or conservative, so I’d make a distinction about attacking Iraq – if Congress explicitly forbids it, then no way. If they’re just not too happy, then there’s precedent for the Prez to do as he sees fit.
Oh yeah. Because people who want to go to war couldn’t possibly have any reason, rationality, or grasp of the facts.
I support the war and don’t care about oil directly in this matter. Heres why: If we install a permanent or long term friendly government in that specific spot we have a foothold in the region that does not currently exist (remember Saudi wants us gone). In the middle term this should stabilize things there and take some heat off of Israel (I’m biased here I suppose but who isn’t biased in some way?) by diverting funds currently heading to Palestinean terrorists, it might also allo us to help Israel and Palestine come to some understnading.
Oil access (okay I care in this sense) like that would be great econimic leverage to tell oil rich nations to get the fuck out of the terror sponsoring business. We could also make Iraq a human rights compliant nation and a flagship nation in the middle east.
My main reason is, however, that I’m a bloodthirst bastard and I want to kill Saddam like we should have done ten years ago. Innocents are going to die no matter what, better they die toward a realistic goal of a general better good than for Hussein to maintain the status quo.
SPOOFE, if you read my other posts you would see that I am for war with Iraq. I was referring to the 37% of Americans that are in support of war without congressional support.
Do you realize that one of the major reasons there are widely supported international anti-American terror organizations is because the US has been doing exactly what you describe in that region for years? The Shah of Iran, the Saudi royals, and even Saddam himself were all helped in one way or another either overtly or covertly by the US (and other Western powers) to ensure a stranglehold on near east oil. The majority populations of those countries are now mostly impoverished, they hate their billionaire tyrant leaders, and most of all they hate us. And your plan (actually Bush’s plan) is to do it one more time? Am I the only person that thinks this is a surefire way to provoke further terrorism?
Take some heat off Israel? I think its time to put that crack pipe away. A war with Iraq that doesn’t have the support of the UN is going to lead to SCUDS falling on Tel Aviv as surely as it did in ‘91. Only perhaps this time the warheads will be loaded with bioweapons.
Cainxinth -
Don’t blame the 100 million Americans. When asked those questions what they are really hearing is, “Is it worth it to lose a few American lives to oust Saddam if he is presumably trying to procure weapons that may take more than a few American lives?”
They are worried the Democrats will use the withholding of support as a bargaining chip.
They are worried an abstract entity like the UN doesn’t have a pressing need to deal with anything, let alone the problems of war.
They aren’t necessarily supporting Bush.
I love hearing the criticisms that the Gulf War was just a move to protect US oil interests. There is a big difference between defending democratic oil rich countries from aggressors and aggressively seeking oil rich territory. Saying we liberated Kuwait just for the oil is like criticizing pharmacists for supplying medicine just for the money.
You also have to seperate Bush’s absolute butch job diplomacy from the issue itself. He should have couched the idea more like, “global developments make it necessary to enforce the terms of the surrender treaty that, until now, have been neglected.” We could have forced Saddam into shedding first blood by simply enforcing the inspections.
But he didn’t. And I have wondered why that is. Is he stupid? Doesn’t he have a million spin doctors telling him how people will take his cowboy attitude? He must. There must be something more too it. Perhaps he finally caught on that the Middle East respects power not diplomacy. Perhaps Bush realized that without crying for war, he could never make the UN grow the balls it needs to actually enforce the weapons inspections rather than lollygag like it has been.
It’s too easy for every other country to denounce action because they aren’t at the front line of aggression.
I pose the question and it really isn’t rhetorical: Could Bush(and the people who spin for him) really be that oblivious to the way people will perceive he is handling this incident or is there some larger strategy behind it? I don’t by reelection or deflection from economy. Any other ideas?
Ok, so you have opinion X, but if other people (51% of Congress, for instance) disagree with you, you’ll go along with what they think instead, do I have this right?
I believe that war with Iraq is justified, regardless of the opinions of the President, Congress, or the UN, I will continue to believe it is justified. I consider inaction WRONG, and will not ever support that, therefore, I am in support of action, regardless of who disagrees with me. Why is this so foolish in your eyes?
I doubt the people that are answering the question view it this way, but if you’re supporting war without the sanction of your Congress, then you have 37% of the surveyed group willing to wage war in direct violation of your Constitution, which is a tad disturbing.
So how are you NOT a “war mongering, propaganda believing asshole”?
<sniff> I feel so close to you right now, ** gobear. **
It seems to me that the result shows a lot of cynicism for congress. Those 37% of the people simply trust their own instincts over those of their representatives, at least on this issue.
And frankly, I think the Democrats are at fault here. Why? Because they are waffling on the war, while refusing to present realistic alternatives. They’re ‘troubled’. They’re concerned’. They have ‘questions’. But they won’t say what those questions are, and they refuse to provide any solutions of their own.
Under those circumstances, many people are understandably skeptical of the motives of Congress, and/or the seriousness of the Congressional leadership.
In other words, if you asked those same people, “If congress refuses to support a war on Iraq, do you believe it will be because of solid, rational reasons, or because of political posturing and/or appeals to special interests?” you’d see those same 37% choosing the latter.
To my mind, that 40% number is rather heartening. But I am something of a pessimist, so any surprise is a pony for Christmas. I believe the political strategists of the right executed a coordinated campaign to convince the American public that immediate action was neccesary. Remember Trent Lott saying that he thought the resolution in question should be passed at once? And as a blank check.
Why did Fearless Leader pick Sept. 12th for his speech to the UN? I find it impossible to believe he had no choice, like he called up to reserve a spot in January and Kofi Annan said, “Sept. 12th, take it or leave it”.
I think it clear that the intent was to associate FL’s message with the emotional upsurge of the Anniversary. An emotional appeal, please note, not a rational one. Pounding the drums, not stating the case. It associates Iraq emotionally with the horror of 9/11, but avoids the difficulty that actual proof might entail. It is the politics of innuendo, and has no place in matters of war.
What other end did this timing serve? Why not July 5th? August 3rd?
That said, I think that the 40% statistic is astonishingly hopeful. I honestly expected a much higher number. It indicates that the American public has not been stampeded. For the very first time, waving the bloody shirt and bloviating patriotic slogans hasn’t worked!
For the very first time! Hallelujah, brothers and sisters! Hallelujah!
What’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong. Legality does not determine right or wrong, they are determined on their own merits. While I would absolutely prefer Congressional and UN support for any action, their possible lack of support doesn’t make it any less necessary.
Sam:
No, because they’re whores, Sam. Just like the vast majority of thier ilk.
Were they timid and reticent in thier opposition. Sure they were, you have read me rail against exactly that. Spineless.
But you don’t carry the question any further. You know as well as I, in this situation the politics of emotion favor the hawks. If, as it certainly appeared, the American public would stampede in favor of war, then any politician who came out against that surge would be writing his political suicide note. Might as well go out and nail his pecker to a tree!
Can we agree on this much, Sam? Can we agree that any attempt to leverage matters of war and peace to political advantage, regardless of the political persuasion of the perpetrator, is the act of a scoundrel and a blackguard?
Wow, I’m agreeing with both Sam Stone and Elucidator! I absolutely agree that the Democrats are being utterly craven terified that if they speak out against the war, they’ll get trounced in the elections, yet they dare not approve the war, lest it backfire on them. Shame on them.
Oderint, dum metuant may have worked for the Romans, up to a point, but you’ll note that they no longer have an empire. We have no legitimate casus belli, and while the world may be grateful that Saddam is deepsixed (assuming the war A)happens and B) is successful), they will be more fearful and hence ready to gang up on us if they see America turning from world policeman to world bully (not that we aren’t seen as that already).
Why does Bush want this war? What are his aims? What must Iraq do to end the hostilities? What is our exit strategy? What are our plans for the cleanup after the war? Somebody besides me needs to be asking these questions.
Somebody needs to hand Bush a copy of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War–oh, not the text-only version, that would tax the poor man’s only neuron. He should read the excellent illustrated version, Sun Tzi Speaks. (Actually the whole line of illustrated Chinese classics from Anchor Press is well worth purchasing–I bought several when I was in Taiwan.)
Ooh, I feel like I’m being set up…
But yeah, I agree. Or rather, let’s re-state it: Going against one’s own principles on matters of war and peace for political advantage is the act fo a scoundrel and a blackguard. Sure.
But I’m not sure I see what’s wrong with using your principled position to political advantage. All presidents do it. Democrats honestly believe in helping poor people, but that doesn’t stop them from trying to play politics over issues of poverty. Nor should it. There’s nothing wrong with going to the people and saying, “This is my position, and I hope you support me because of it”, or even “This is my opponent’s position, and you should vote for me because that position is wrong.”
So let me repeat: If Daschle is against the war, and he makes a speech before election day and says, “The Republicans want to go to war, and I don’t. If you agree with me, vote the scoundrels out!”, I’d have no problem with it. However, if Daschle’s opinion on war changes depending on what is politically expedient, that is reprehensible.
If Bush makes a speech and says, “The Democrats are wrong for refusing to vote for my war measures bill.”, and he makes the speech for the sole purpose of helping Republicans get elected, that’s also fine.
In fact, I think the Democratic position, which is that the issue is ‘too important’ to debate before an election, is untenable. The U.S. is a democracy. If the issue is that important, don’t the voters have the right to know their representative’s position on it BEFORE the election? Why should the issue be swept under the rug until it’s too late for the voters to make their preference known?
I’m sure that Democrats feel differently, but it seems to me that by far the most ‘politicisation’ of this debate is coming from Democrats. They are the ones changing their positions. They are the ones trying to hide the issue until the election is over. They are the ones who refuse to have a firm policy, and instead try to defuse the president’s position with vague ‘concerns’ and ‘questions’.
And they are the ones who refused to engage in the debate at all in February when it started. They are so driven by the politics of the situation that they won’t even tell us what their own position is.
So, Sam:
Would you agree then that it is correct for a leader (or Our Leader)to guide the people to a goal that, * in his determination* is correct?
For instance: FDR.
He shaded the truth, made moves. To draw the US population to war with Evil. As luck woud have it, Pearl Habor made that entirely academic. But America gone to war because of Aushwitz?
Was that wrong? If Pearl Harbor had not happened,woud we have declared war simpy because they might be a threat? Could he make a case for war simply because the Japanese had weapons of mass destruction?
A declaration of war is a hideous moral statement. It can only be made under the most extreme of duress.
Has that limit been met?
Like just about everything else the Gulf War was not a black and white event. Many factors led to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait and our subsequent response. The bottom line though is that if Kuwait wasn’t an oil rich nation we would have never defended it. This underlies the pragmatic nature of US foreign policy. Country X had a lot of oil so the same rules in Country Y which doesn’t, don’t apply. Western powers tolerate dictators only when it is in their interest to do so. When Saddam was gassing domestic Kurds and foreign Iranians, harboring Palestinian terrorists, and amassing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons he was one of our strongest allies in the Middle East. Kuwait changed all that. No one seemed to care when Indonesia invaded and annexed East Timor in 1975, or when India took Goa in 1961. What did Kuwait have that those nations didn’t? Oil.
A lot you might argue that policies like these are necessary to ensure the economic growth capitalism depends on. I happen to disagree. Unfortunately we’ll never know, but the case can be made that our pragmatic policies have played a pivotal role in mitigating 9/11.
That strategy is doing wonders for the Likud party in Israel. Granted diplomacy wasn’t terrifically successful either, but thats a whole other story centered chiefly around Jerusalem which has been a deal breaker for both sides and still is.
He has a strategy, or at least Cheney does, and as I said I think it is to deflect attention away from the economy and terrorism, and in line with his rhetoric to remove the Iraqi threat that his father failed to. Most of all I think he wants the American people to see he is being proactive here. That gallop poll indicates most Americans are in agreement with action of some kind.
No, that’s not what I said at all. I respect your ideological opposition to Saddam, but I am addressing this problem realistically not idealistically. I think Saddam is indeed a threat but I only support an attack on Iraq with UN support because I think A) Bush is going to keep pushing for war until he gets it on some terms and B) I think if war is inevitable we have the best chance of avoiding further provocation of Islamic terrorists if we act in unity with the UN. Those who responded for war without congressional consent are foolish because they are oblivious to the fact that if America were to invade Iraq tomorrow without anyone’s support Islamic radicals would mount a massive guerrilla offensive in America. With UN backing its still possible, but significantly less likely.
Because I’m trying to avoid war but I’m willing to accept the least possible of all evils. And, because I read news from sources both in support of and opposed to the US.
Finally, I can’t speak in defense of the Dems in this instance. I also think they are acting cowardly. But that’s politics. Find me one politician that doesn’t live in fear of losing reelection.
I would like a clarification of the question.
Were the people polled asked “Would you approve of an invasion of Iraq (over the 90 day period granted to the President) over Congress’s specific objections?”
or, is the question
“Do you believe that Iraq must be attacked even if Congress disapproves of such action?”
There is a HUGE difference between the two questions and it decides how I stand on the issue. In the first one, the pollsters would be asking if the public supports violating the Constitution. In the second one, Gallup is merely asking an opinion. Even if Congress doesn’t want to, what do you think we should do?
Pardon the drift…
Oh stopit!
I would remind you that the MEN & WOMEN of the uniformed services are volunteers and a very patriotic lot the are. I don’t have a site but my
best estimate tells me they are probably about 90% in favor of going into Iraq without even Bushs’ support. Which I guess make them part of the
“war mongering, propaganda believing assholes” of which you so fondly speak.
Nothing chaps my chinchilla worse than some commierad asshole suddenly finding concern for our MEN & WOMEN in the military. So spare us your crocodile tears cainxinth. If this was 1968 you and yours would be standing in line at the airport to spit on those “boys and girls”.
I have no doubt that when we do go to war with Iraq, the left will be rooting for Sadams bunch to kill as many of our solders as they can just in the hope of making the C in C look bad.
God you your hypocrisy make me sick! :mad:
Mensch