SPOOFE:It’s very simple: Iraq has sanctions placed against it. Iraq violates sanctions. US gives Iraq smacketh down. That’s it.
Apparently not. Other nations have violated Security Council resolutions, other nations have violated UN restrictions, without the US deciding that it has a unilateral mission to go in and effect a regime change by force.
So what are the rules here? We are obviously not merely upholding a consistent policy of “Everyone must always strictly abide by UN decrees, or else we bomb you”. Heck, by that token we’d have to bomb a whole bunch of people including our own allies.
You seem to be saying “It doesn’t matter whether or not attacking Iraq is a wise move strategically or politically; we simply have to do it because they’re breaking the law.” Well, that is evidently not the rule we’re playing by in a number of other cases, so I don’t buy it as a justification for war in this case.
Not to break up a perfectly fine rant or anything, but roughly 20% of America’s oil imports already come from Iraq under the oil-for-food program. We’re paying below market prices too. Check the Newsweek archives from a month or so ago for further details.
After reading the document cover-to-cover, I find that Rove’s Power Point document admits no such thing.
I was dissapointed. After the way some talked of the PP document, I thought it would say something like: “Intentionally start a bogus war with an impotent Iraq. It will surely keep approval ratings high, and help Republicans win seats in bothe the Senate and the House.”
Instead, all I read was: “Focus on War and Economy”, under a page titled “Republican Strategy”. As there was (and is for the foreseeable future) still an ongoing war on terrorism in the Middle East, I find it reasonable for Republican candidates to have spoken positively about American efforts to combat terror as part of their campaigns.
And BTW, nowhere in the Rove document is a link – even an extremely tenuous one – made between the U.S.'s current actions viz-a-viz Iraq and the 2002 elections. How can the war referenced by Rove be anything BUT the ongoing war on terror? War versus Iraq is not even yet a reality – were Republican candidates going around taking credit for an unfought, speculative war?
Heck, on the page prior, under “Democratic Strategy”, the first item is “Support President on War.” If it was wrong for Republican candidates to “focus on war”, why is it OK that Democratic candidates were “supporting President on war”?
No wonder the press forgot about the Rove document so fast – it’s not in any way damning to the Republican party. There’s nothing there.
With the exception of you, Bricker, and until recently myself, wholesale generalizations and demonizations of your opponents, based on individual occurences seems to be the coin of the realm.
Wow, Scylla; no wonder you’re on Diogenes’ case, for he seems too much like his namesake in failure. Not only have you actually found an honest man in the wilderness of the SDMB (where most of us are --what was your term? -prevarificators-- and twisters of words), but you’ve actually until very recently been one of three honest men. I grieve for your loss of integrity, and for the massive blow this has delivered to the credibility and rectitude of this message board.
Actually, it’s being like you. That’s what I was trying for anyway, albeit in an exagerated version.
And, it’s kind of interesting as a debating dynamic.
If I’m the one making unwarranted generalizations, than the other party has to stop. They can’t continue to make their unwarranted generalizations while they’re chastising me for mine, as that would be blatantly hypocritical.
Ironically, if I bash Democrats, then the Republican bashing seems to stop while my bashings are refuted and chastised.
No, no, no. If you want to be like me, you actually have to offer support for your positions. You know, citations and such. Give it a whirl sometime. It makes for much more interesting political discussions than simply bashing the other side.
Why bother? There are tons of them out there. There’s no shortage of sights bashing liberals, and I’m sure they have all kinds of quotes and statistics. I’ve even seen some.
No. no. no. If you are just engaged in worthless attacks then the Budha nature is to be original.
And still not sure on this Clinton disbarrment thing.
It seems to me like there was a trial and disbarment proceedings, which Clinton fought, and as soon as it became absolutely clear that he was going to have his license forcible taken from him no matter what, he surrendered it.
Is it incorrect to say he was “disbarred?”
It is correct to say that he was “impeached” because the word refers to the process. Why is it incorrect with “disbarred?”
I get so sick of hearing we are “at war”. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. If we are “at war” now on terrorism, then we were “at war” on poverty and “at war” on drugs.
By “war” they meant the war they were planning and are still planning, and I think you know that perfectly well.
I’ll call it war. While the name “war on terror” seems trite and superficially comparable to “war on drugs/poverty”, the war on terror is, in fact, a different animal.
There are still American troops and American intelligence all over the Middle East. While these units are actively engaged in various missions to weaken Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks, I’ll call it war.
I believe any war against Iraq is meant to only be a contigency. I think the plan all along was to remove Iraq’s teeth without actually going to war, but with using the threat of war as leverage.
There has been no formal declaration of war. there has been no clear definition of the “enemy.” There is no “war” from any meaningful legal standpoint. The term is purely rhetorical.
It’s not a “war.” It’s a military campaign, I guess Maybe it could be defined as a police action, but in order for it to be a WAR you need a resolution from congress and you need to define an enemy.
Despite all that, IMHO, there is a war afoot. {shrug}
Actually, I do think the enemy is clearly defined. The CIA and what American troops are abroad know the names and faces of many (not all) of the terrorists they seek to eliminate or capture.
What exactly does this line of reasoning gain you? I’d like my nation to take any military campaign – regardless of to-the-letter legal definition – seriously.
If you will not allow the USA to do everything in it’s power to win a war because there is no war, then will you allow the USA to do everything in it’s power to successfully complete a military campaign? Everything in it’s power to successfully apprehend the targets of a police action?
OK, for the sake of argument, let’s not call it a war. What’s the difference?
As far as I’m concerned, if you’re sending troops and intelligence assets somewhere abroad to perform a series of missions towards some common goal, you’d best act as though you are in a declared war.