Bush's Opposition

Great Debates
41

While this is a response to a bit of a hijack, I just have to comment on this:

So Canada’s problems are the U.S.'s fault??? You think our health care system is going to hell because of the United States? Pray tell, how do you come to that conclusion?

I for one hope American hospital managers DO come here and kick some ass. Then maybe our bureaucratic health system will be forced to do a little competing.

Uh, the U.S. isn’t losing any allies that I can see. And Canada hasn’t been bending over for the U.S. On the contrary, Chretien has been bending over backwards to stick his thumb in George Bush’s eye, and THAT is going to have negative consequences. Canada would be in a much stronger international position had we supported the war in Iraq. We could be sitting at the table with the other allies, getting a say in how future events will pan out. Instead, our government will get to watch from the sidelines, all because Jean Chretien is a fool.

Heh. What we need is someone from the RIGHT wing to repair some of the damage done by the left. In case you haven’t noticed, the LIBERAL party has been running Canada in an almost autocratic fashion for a lot of years now. The result: A military on the verge of collapse, estrangement with our largest trading partner, and economic malaise everywhere except Alberta, which is controlled by the RIGHT wing of Canadian politics. And Alberta right now has one of the best economies in the world. If Alberta were a country, it would rank only slightly behind Luxembourg as having the highest per-capita income in the world. And it’s not just because of oil revenue either - Alberta outperforms other provinces by just about every other measure.

You lefties could learn a lesson from us.

And you believe that we’d be safer spending that billion dollars on, say, a gun registry? One that hasn’t stopped a single crime, but has forced millions of law-abiding people to pay a new gun tax, and STILL is running almost FIFTY times over its original projected cost (and still doesn’t work)?

Missile defense is coming, whether Canada likes it or not. We can either get on board, and have some say in the matter, or we can get all snotty about it, and the U.S. will do it anyway, whether we like it or not. In any event, the U.S. is going to spend about 95% of the money on it, and we get essentially a free ride. All we have to do is agree to help base it and provide logistics. That sounds like a damned good deal to me.

42

I live in Chicago and can attest to Carol’s awfulness.

43

You lost me, Lemur866. I’m Green not Red and not familiar with the “old arguments” so I have no idea why you are getting so excited. I am a capitalist. I don’t have an argument here, just a belief and it’s not the belief that bad is good. I am sorry for all those people who have died and continue to die in Iraq because Bush became President. I feel bad about those who will die in the retalitory attacks I am sure will follow. I would feel guilty if I felt responsible for any of that. I’m not saying I will support conservative recklessness. I won’t. I just think we will have to pass through the tunnel to get to the light on the other side. Or perhaps running the gauntlet would be a better metaphor.

44

I think that Dean will win the nomination mostly from the internet. With just a rather small number of people doing a meetup thing that he has going he has put himself slightly behind Kerry. It continues to grow and with that Dean will pull ahead and win the nomination. Unless something happens to change that I don’t think any of the other candidates have a chance.

As far as Dean vs Bush goes I try not to be too much of an optimist, but I’d say that the fact that Dean is fiscally conservative and Bush is not lots of economically conservative people would vote for Dean. Sort of like a repeat of the 1992 elections except the votes going to Dean instead of Perot.

45

2Sense said:

Either you are grossly ignorant about what has been going on in Iraq over the past two decades, or you are misinformed by what is going on there now.

Saddam killed MILLIONS of people. They are currently finding mass graves all over the country - including a mass grave for Kurdish children killed by Saddam in the last uprising - buried clutching their dolls.

Did you feel any guilt for them? Would you have felt any guilt for the 200 children who were being held in a dank prison by Saddam in order to punish their parents? They are now free.

Just pay some attention to what’s going on in Iraq, without reading it in The Nation or the DemocraticUnderground. The people of Iraq cheered in the streets when Saddam was toppled, and they are still giddy with freedom. You can disagree with Bush’s stated reasons for invading Iraq if you want, but only a very distorted viewing of the situation would cause you to conclude that the result was anything but a great achievement for the Iraqi people.

46

Yeah, Sam, the people of Iraq are now so giddy with freedom that they’re taking potshots at American forces on a daily basis and urging us to get out ASAP. :rolleyes:

And where’s your moral outrage and steely-eyed determination for all the folks still living under brutal and repressive regimes in the Congo, or Burundi, or Zimbabwe, or Malaysia, or China, etc., etc., etc.? I don’t see anyone in the Bush White House strutting for a war in any of those places, but that doesn’t surprise me – there ain’t enough oil for the Bush II White House to give a fig about 'em.

47

You can’t go after them all. Politics is the art of the possible.

But I support liberalization throughout the world. By military force if necessary. Just because a murderous thug manages to get enough henchmen to take over an entire country does not make him a sovereign. For instance, we should kick the ass of Robert Mugabe. Syria and Iran can be pressured, and are. China is liberalizing on its own, and should be encouraged to continue the process. Castro, well, that old bastard has to die sometime, and there’s little else holding that shell of a government together.

But hey, if you want to make a case for taking down a repressive dictator, I’m all ears.

The only people taking potshots at American soldiers in Iraq are the same usual suspects that take potshots at them wherever they go in the middle east. Radical terrorists, and a bunch of ex-ba’athists who lost a lot of power and prestige when Saddam went tits-up. But from what I’ve read and seen in the media, when you get away from the hotspots where the disaffected collect (say, outside the Palestine hotel, which attracts them like moths to a light), the people are actually pretty happy. Many of them want the Americans to stay, because they don’t trust their own leaders.

And of the people that are pissed off, many are mad simply because the destabilization of regime change has caused them temporary hardship due to water and power shortages. Once those are fixed up and oil money starts flowing back into the economy, I think you’ll find support for the U.S. even higher.

48

As far as Dean vs Bush goes I try not to be too much of an optimist, but I’d say that the fact that Dean is fiscally conservative and Bush is not lots of economically conservative people would vote for Dean. Sort of like a repeat of the 1992 elections except the votes going to Dean instead of Perot.

I am considering Dean because of this, and because he and Graham are the only candidates to make a firm statement of commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq.

49

Dick Gephart gives me the willies, just like Rumsfeld. They ooze insincerity when they speak.

50

Sam

…The only people taking potshots at American soldiers in Iraq are the same usual suspects that take potshots at them wherever they go in the middle east. Radical terrorists, and a bunch of ex-ba’athists who lost a lot of power and prestige when Saddam went tits-up…Many of them want the Americans to stay, because they don’t trust their own leaders…And of the people that are pissed off, many are mad simply because the destabilization of regime change has caused them temporary hardship due to water and power shortages. Once those are fixed up and oil money starts flowing back into the economy, I think you’ll find support for the U.S. even higher…"

Have you some special sources of intel, Sam? Frankly, this sounds a lot like intuition and/or wishful thinking.

51

Considering most of these surviving regimes have even less real estate, weapons, and troops than Iraq had, this argument doesn’t carry a whole lot of water. “Yeah, we invaded Iraq to free the poor repressed Iraqi people, but we’re going to ignore all the poor repressed people in all these other pipsqueak countries because they’re too tough for us.” :rolleyes:

But then, this is the same line of thinking that produces nonsense like, “Saddam Hussein was an evil bloodthirsty heartless bastard who decided to destroy all of his WMDs instead of using them against the invading American forces.” :smack:

52

Look, if y’all WANT us to start invading more countries, maybe we should start up a list. But please, one invasion per year. Last year was Afghanistan, this year is Iraq. Now, Iran looks good to me, but I hear it conflicts with elucidator’s schedule. So maybe not Iran. Where else looks good? We’ve done Islamic twice in a row, maybe we should try something different this time.

Seriously, Iraq presented a fairly unusual target of opportunity. A diplomatically isolated unpopular dictator, a potentially wealthy country, years of sanctions and UN resolutions, a hollow military force, etc.

There isn’t a country on the planet that presents the tempting target Iraq did. The argument that if we invade one screwed up country we owe every other screwed up country an invasion is kind of silly, especially since you don’t actually WANT us to invade the other countries. And it also assumes that Bush and Co. aren’t compiling that list right now, for real. If he IS compiling that list, would that make the Iraq war more or less justified?

53

So doesn’t this translate into “We only invade countries with stuff worth looting”?

54

BY ‘possible’ I don’t mean just militarily. I mean things like political will, legal justification, political ramifications among neighbors, etc. ad nauseum. Plus, the American people have to be willing to support it.

Other parts of the equation are pure practical concerns. Can the country be liberated and STAY that way? Is there a credible alternative to the current government? Would the human cost of invasion and overthrow be greater than the cost of leaving the regime in place? Is there a possibility of reform? Etc.

But when situations are hopeless, and people are being oppressed, I believe it is the duty of free people to go to their aid.

55

**Sam Stone **,
You have missed the point. I wasn’t comparing Bush and Saddam. I will happily admit that so far the Bush dictatorship of Iraq has been less brutal than that of the previous regime. I was talking about me and my guilt. When conservatives gain power they will use it to kill people. It might be homeless people freezing to death in the gutters or people who can afford homes dying in them because they can’t afford an operation or people dying in some macho military intervention overseas but I know that some will die. I am absolving myself of responsibility for those deaths because I don’t support conservatism even though I refuse to oppose it at all costs.

56

I attended a Dean meetup rally last night and came away fairly impressed. He indeed has a firm grassroots head start out of the gate that is growing. Of course the WMD issue and economy and who knows what else will need to play out before we know if anyone can be a serious challenge to Bush. One thing I heard last night that I found interesting: The Greens, or a movement within their/my party are apparently discussing not running a candidate, but instead throwing their support behind Dean. He definately has the left sewn up. It will be interesting to see how this affects his image to centrists. But while he is socially quite liberal, his fiscal views are pretty conservative. Sounds like a good combo to me.

BTW, I am Green but will probably revert to Dem so I can vote in the primary.

57

We didn’t let the lack of that stuff stop this Iraq war, did we?

58

We did have all that stuff. We would have less for an invasion of say, Zimbabwe.

Don’t be surprised to see an invasion of Liberia though. Charles Taylor has been seriously destablizing the region and now the UN wants him arrested. We could very well get a UN mandate to go in there and get him.

59

OK, I know I’m guilty of this too, but lets confine the hijack re: Iraq to discussion of how it will affect the 2004 election. We have a godzillion other threads for the other stuff.

It was kind of funny watching the pro-war candidates squirm as they tried to explain why they voted for the war: “How was I supposed to know the war would be unpopular?”. But will Iraq be a major issue a year from now?

Maybe it will and maybe it won’t but the issue is completely out of the hands of the democratic candidates. If Iraq has blown up in Bush’s face by then, it will be an issue. If things stay at their current level or get better, then the issue will have no traction no matter how flimsy Bush’s pretext for war was. Iraq will be old news, and there will be some other national security issue on the front burner…North Korea, or Syria or Uzbekistan or some such.

60

The war was very popular. 80% in the last poll think it went well. Of course, that could change if things get out of hand there, but that only penalizes Bush. The war itself went fine and the pro-war Democrats only benefitted from that. If the rebuilding is messed up, even the anti-war Democrats can benefit. Dean and Graham, both anti-Iraq war(but hardly pacifists. like that idiot Kucinich), have said they will commit to rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq, and that Bush has done a poor job. That’s a decent strategy for getting their national security bona fides.