What kind of nonsense is this? Bush and his regime is becoming more Orwellian by the day. Everything is becoming the opposite of common sense. We’re treating those “enemy combatants” as guilty until proven innocent also.
Is anyone else bothered by using unamerican methods to defend our American way of life?
Coming soon, more slogans from Bush:
War is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
What’s the problem with the logic?
Sua
We need evidence that another country is a threat before sending thousands of young men in the prime of their life off to some desert to get shot at.
But that’s not what you were talking about in your OP. You equated Bush’s comment with doublespeak.
Where we’ve recently fought a war with Iraq, where Iraq has violated the terms of the agreement to end the war, and where Iraq routinely shoots at American planes, Bush has ample reason to make his statement.
What you’re talking about is what should be done about that. Completely different issue.
Sua
But that’s been proven Blalron…
Until Iraq shows some bettering, Iraq remains an enemy to the universal principles of the Free World, hence the US amongst other nations.
That doesn’t mean you have to agree with Bush’ strategies to deal with this threat.
Sorry, but I think you have to have another go at this one.
Sparc
Ha ha ha ha… double posts in two threads after the other, Sua. I guess that puts us at one equal since I beat you to it in the other one.
Listen you dang furriner, here in 'Merica we say “one even.”
Sua
Thankful that Sparc is grading us on speed of response rather than quality.
Pray tell, what would you consider evidence? If Iraq invaded or threatened a neighboring country? If they routinely tried to counter the restrictions placed on them following such an invasion?
How about the fact that Saddam Hussein is attempting to build atomic (or nuclear, whichever is more destructful) weapons?
What about the fact that he has said, “We will crush your skulls beneath our feet, and you will swim in your own blood.”
If nothing else, don’t you just kind of want this guy dead so you can play your Playstation 2 and eat Jello Pudding Pops in peace?
“Universal Principles of the Free World” sounds like a great name for a pamphlet: almost Jeffersonian in style. I’m afraid, though, that I’m not as familiar as I should be with this standard set of Universal Principles that we all should know. A bit of help would be appreciated.
Re: the OP, I can’t (yet) agree that the recent rhetoric about Iraq has Orwellian overtones (much closer in spirit is Robert Mugabe’s demonizing of white farmers while his nation starves, IMO). I do think however, that legitimate questions can be raised about the path the administration is taking.
Here are some of the questions that I would ask of the administration if I had the chance:
What is the specific, direct threat to the United States currently posed by Iraq?
Is the planned invasion intended to somehow make up for a perceived US failure to unseat Hussein at the end of the Gulf War?
Does the administration believe that Iraq had a hand in the 9/11/01 attacks? If so, what was the nature of Iraq’s participation?
Why has the adminstration apparently had great difficulty convincing governments in the Middle East and Europe of the urgency of this mission to topple Saddam?
What entity does the US expect to govern Iraq after Hussein has been unseated, or does the US plan for a lengthy occupation under martial law?
I don’t shed the tiniest tear for Saddam and his supporters. OTOH, I have no sense that the administration has clearly articulated its reasoning for embarking on the upcoming adventure in the Persian Gulf right now rather than any other time.
Pretend that I am President for a bit, and I will answer. (You have a few minutes before my minions get to you, so relax and read!)
Aquisition of strategic WMD would destabilize the region (ie, Iraq invades Kuwait then threatens to wipe out Riyahd and Dubai if anyone tries to re-liberate them), and allow Saddam to attack the US using them, vis a vis terrorists. The latter is the greater of the two threats to America directly.
Nope.
Dunno yet; But it there is a strong possibility that Atta met with an Iraqi intel officer at least once.
4)Two different answers:
The Middle-East regimes see a free and democratic Iraq as a direct threat to their own dictatorships/oligarchies.
Europe has a bug up its collective ass about America. We invade, we are imperialists. We do not, then when Mssr.Hussien pulls his next wacky stunt, we are blamed for not having done something about it sooner. Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
One wouldn’t expect anything more complex as analysis from you Mr. President, but would the Head of State be as kind as to explain this rather too simple of simpleton equations?
I don’t know if you’re referring to Kuwait, Saddam’s war with Iran or the current state of play but, whichever it is, according to Scott Ritter – former chief of the UN Inspectors in Iraq:
“This is not about the security of the United States,” said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. “This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation.”
<snip>
Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq’s weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists."
C’mon chaps, face it; there will be no war - UN Inspectors back in by January. Who’s taking bets ?
Then, “Mr. President”, please supply evidence of any kind that Saddam is currently hiding or producing WMD of any type, and better yet, that he has the intention to use them outside his own borders. I’d be happy to accept a satellite photo of a specific current plant where such weapons are produced and stored, backed by the testimony of any Iarqi dissident who can certify that he or she worked in that plant while such wepons were produced or stored, or as little as one authenticated Iraqi document that refers to the production and storage of WMD within the past five years.
Better yet would be some explanation as to how and why your administration believes that Saddam has concrete plans to use said weapons against US targets.
Chances are that such evidence will not be forthcoming before October. If and when the invasion takes place, however, IMO you had better come up with some sort of solid avidence of an active Iraqi WMD program, verifiable by an independent third party, if your administration wants to stay in office for a second term.
Personally, I would be more readily swayed by argument 1) than argument 2).
OK, so it was perfectly alright to leave Saddam in power at the end of the Gulf War, and perfectly alright to take Iraqi ground fire directed at US aircraft dozens of times since '91, and to let him kick UN weapons inspectors out of the country in '98, but now something (what?) is not OK? This simply doesn’t make sense.
To use perhaps a too-obvious example, Lee Harvey Oswald lived in the Soviet Union, and met several times with Soviet agents, yet no one seriously considers his assassination of JFK to have been a Soviet-sponsored terrorist act.
As opposed to seeing the current Iraqi regime as a threat to their borders, as seems to be the case.
Setting aside for the moment the absurdity of this scenario (it says that if the March to Baghdad is called off, European politicos will bash the US for not carrying out an invasion that many of them are on record as having opposed), this answer appears to presume that the European Union is an undeclared enemy of the US. Perhaps we are preparing to invade the wrong country, eh?
Well, at last one I can agree with.
Thank you, “Mr. President”, for your comments. I can’t, however, say that I am any more satisfied as to your motives than before I posed my questions.
Errrr L_C,
I think I was agreeing that it had naught to do with Bush strategy. The fact still remains that Iraq has yet to comply with a good dozen UN resolutions and until such time remains a threat to stability in the region specifically, and universal principals generally. That Bush exagerates this for reasons mentioned in your post doesn’t make the OP more sensible - but your post makes for a good OP in itself.
In all other parts I agree with you throughout, so I won’t bet against you.
Sparc
Ten bucks says you’re right. If we haven’t gone in yet, we’re not going to. Right now, we’re glaring at Saddam and saying, “C’mon, give us a reason… we dare ya!”
The nice thing about that is that it pretty much guarantees that Saddam won’t try anything. After a few months, the U.S. will cool down, and things’ll get all hunky-dory again (sorta).
What would Dubya’s favorite political philosopher have to say about how to treat one’s enemies, I wonder?
But to suggest that this invasion has something to do with getting some paypack for Daddy is nonsense.
**
I haven’t said that Iraq supported the 9-11 terrorists, but more information is needed. As things stand, the issue is murky.
The meeting between Atta and the Iraqi intel officer would not be sufficient justification for an invasion.
**
I’ll add that one to my talking points. But in all honesty, I think the various regimes of the area fear a democratic pro-US Iraq more then they fear the conventional Iraqi army.
**
I like your line of thinking. I will put you on my stategery team! But alas, thanks to 8 years of Clinton, we no longer have the military capability of seizing Europe, and saving them from themselves.
Look at it this way: If, say in 4 years, in a ‘we did not invade Iraq’ world, Iraq does something nasty. They gas a bunch of people (inside or out of their borders). Or they supply VX gas to Palestinian terrorists. Along those lines.
Of course America will get blamed, partially! We would be blamed for not having taken care of the problem back when it would have been simple to do so.
**
You are already on my ‘strategery team’, so no more kissing up!
Sparc,
Plays the devils advocate for a moment, and tell me why Europe is against an American invasion of Iraq. My standard news sources (Fox News, CNN and ‘The Simspons’) tell me that the various gov’t of Europe are opposed, but no detail is given.
I really don’t know why Europe is not giving us the go ahead on this one (it’s not like we are asking for military assistance, but a Panzer division or two would be nice, eh?).
I have not been in Europe for years, and my family in Croatia is so hawkish that they make me look like a pacifist, so I cannot seem to get a good set of reasons, from the European perspective, as to why we shouldn’t invade.
Why don’t we invade the Vatican while we’re at it. It’s the capitol of a religion that has killed millions of people (Crusades, Inquisition, etc) and stunted scientific progress (Galileo).
I don’t see any reason why not to invade Vatican City.
No worries, Sparc – just thought it was worth injecting a fellow conservative’s (of Bush) perspective. ** Blalron’s ** suggestion of an increase in Orwellian style rhetoric doesn’t seem that harsh to me - we are being asked to not only look at the issues in black and white but also from increasingly obtuse angles and, at this point, it would seem appropriate to be concerned as much with ‘perspective change’ as any changes Bush desires within the Iraqi leadership.
In the most general terms and off the top of my head:
No evidence of WOMD
No evidence of terrorist links
No current UN Mandate (Europe’s keen on the legalities)
Europe trades and dialogues with Iraq
Europe sees no threat from Iraq
Europe believes the consequences of invasion are not quantifiable or (possibly) containable
Europe sees no alternative Iraqi Administration (power vacuum)
Europe sees no end game to the Bush invasion scenario
Europe seriously doubts Bush’s abilities to manage a war
Europe fundamentally dislikes Bush’s self-serving motivations and personal agenda
Europe doesn’t want to play ball with an Isolationist
Sure Europe wants the UN Inspectors to return – this time, hopefully, without the duplicitous spying-for-the-US contingent – and sees trade and dialogue as the best way to achieve that (nb. UK Ministerial visit to Libya last week). But then Europe would, it doesn’t have the military cohesion of the US or the conservative/Isolationist/self-serving agenda of Bush.