No, this was the one they thought would play the best with the public so they ran with it. That’s politics (or fear mongering potAto/potato). Clearly there were other reasons, just look at all the leaked documents that came out about the case for invasion even before 9/11. I concede they made a royal hash of the WMD case, but that doesn’t bother me because that was not the reason I supported invasion in the first place.
You seem pretty dismissive of your reason #3, but that is a really damn good reason.
Mr. Moto you seem a reasonable fellow, in fact you seem to be one of the few in this thread, so let me address some of the fallacies in this post of yours.
The Democratic party is far better shape now than it’s been in a very long time. The problem is not with the Democratic party, or with the Republican party, the problem is polarization. The ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality that Bush is so good at pushing, and that you see so clearly on this very board. I would argue that it’s always been below the surface, but that it really came to fruition during the Clinton administration. I think the continual prosecution/persecution of Clinton by the Republicans in congress made it impossible for the parties to see eye-to-eye. I imagine this statement is going to turn into a kindergarten argument of ‘no you started it’, but that’s my opinion.
As far as losses in offices held; you have to admit, that a large number of those, were not real Democrats as all, but southern Dixicrats, or basically Republicans who didn’t want the “party of Lincoln” scarlet letter.
I know that it probably hasn’t occurred to you, but perhaps most Democrats aren’t “true liberals” in the sense you think. I know very few Democrats who I would be considered liberal in the big government, big deficits, big taxes, way Republican often say they are. I think most Democrats are just as much for balanced budgets, and smaller government as are most Republicans. The main difference between us, is that I don’t mind paying my taxes, as I consider it the fee one pays for the privilege of living in this country. The other main difference between us is that I also believe that this great country has an obligation to take care of the poor, the insane, the children and the elderly.
I think it’s funny that you’re claiming that Clinton only won because of “major spoiler candidates”.
You’re completely wrong on gun control. Remember, saying it often enough doesn’t make it true (this is not directed at you, but I heard this same thing this weekend said by a member of the NRA). According to the polling the vast majority (>85%) of Americans believe that gun laws are not strict enough, or should remain as the are.
I don’t get this at all. Who are these fabulous, currently serving, Republican war heroes? It’s clear that ones military history does not equate to confidence with ones ability to protect the nation. For whatever reason Republicans have taken the lead on this. For the life of me, I have no idea why, but there you have it. I think it’s just a mistaken perception, as members of the military tend to be Republicans.
You fear for your country when a Democrat is elected?
Wow, what marvelous generalizations you throw out here. None of which apply to what I said, however. I’m not saying the “common man” is inherently ignorant, or generally prone to electing the wrong candidate–I’m not about to paint with so wide a brush (which is what you did).
What I’m saying is this: the Iraq war is the defining moment of Dubya’s candidacy. It is the overarching issue that colors all else. AND IT IS ON THIS ISSUE THAT THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS ARE WORKING WITH WRONG INFORMATION, AND DON’T CARE TO BE CORRECTED ON IT, AND THE PRESIDENT IS ONLY MORE THAN HAPPY TO EXPLOIT THAT.
No shit, that’s what I just said. They wanted to take out SH so they reverse engineered a war. They huddled around and said “what’s the best way to sell this the public”? The strongest argument they came up with (WMD) was pretty damn weak, and turned out to be completely wrong.
We shouldn’t be angry about this incredibly huge failure?
Show some of these leaked documents.
You concede? Oh well that makes everything all right now!
So our main reason for premptive invasion was 100% completely FALSE, but we go “oops <shrug> our bad, hmmm, well, he was an evil guy anyway”.
This attitude is the very reason why we’re despised around the world.
Don’t you get that? You want to fight terrorism? Not acting like we own the world will do far more good then killing the people who hate us. Failing that, we should kill these people in a manner that does not entirely enrage the world, because what’s the point of doing it if we’re going to breed more terrorists then we eliminate?
What’s the old saying, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure?
What you’re telling me is that even without the WMD thing you still felt invasion was the correct course of action, because of “other reasons”? The only reason this war could be justified was WMD in the first place, because the US about to get blown the fuck up is about the only good reason to premptively strike.
Why don’t you tell me about these “other reasons”
Because a guy is an asshole who kills his own civilians? So when are we invading North Korea? There are millions of people eating dirt and languishing in gulags over there.
Show some of these leaked documents …
So our main reason for premptive invasion was 100% completely FALSE, but we go “oops <shrug> our bad, hmmm, well, he was an evil guy anyway”.
I will have to search more fully for more documents, but interestingly your assertion that his badness was an afterthought is completely wrong. It was in fact one of the primary reasons.
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1120933,00.html
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,”
Don’t you get that? You want to fight terrorism? Not acting like we own the world will do far more good then killing the people who hate us. Failing that, we should kill these people in a manner that does not entirely enrage the world, because what’s the point of doing it if we’re going to breed more terrorists then we eliminate?
Two points. You are assuming my support of the invasion is to fight terrorism. Secondly, this could actually reduce terrorism. Iraq was a terribly destabilizing force in the ME. You think the invasion enrages the ME, how about the sanctions? 50 Thousand children dying every year. How about Saddam giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers? He didn’t give a fig about their cause, it was all about keeping the conflict hot in Israel.
You know, 9/11 happened before the invasion in Iraq and it is likely there are many other plots in the works that have their roots way before the invasion. USA is a target with or without Iraq.
**What you’re telling me is that even without the WMD thing you still felt invasion was the correct course of action, because of “other reasons”? The only reason this war could be justified was WMD in the first place, because the US about to get blown the fuck up is about the only good reason to premptively strike.
Why don’t you tell me about these “other reasons”**
Removing crippling sanctions that have killed half a million Iraqis over the last decade.
Remove a brutal dictator.
Send a message to other dangerous states (as somebody else mentioned, Lybia and Iran admitted to secret nuclear programmes pretty quick)
Those are my biggies. If you can’t come up with anything other than finding WMD’s, then you truly value American lives above all others. Because a guy is an asshole who kills his own civilians? So when are we invading North Korea? There are millions of people eating dirt and languishing in gulags over there. I’d love that if we could guarantee the safety for South Korea and Japan. Maybe it’ll never happen, you pick the battles you can win. You don’t yell at the police for stopping theives because these still haven’t locked up all the murderers do you?
lightstrand, give me a clipboard, a set of questions I get to choose myself, and a food court in a mall, and I’ll hand you a poll saying anything I want it to say.
The only polls that count are conducted on one day in November. And gun control loses here every time. It has not been an issue that has helped Democrats win elections. More importantly, it is essentially a distraction from real issues of crime and violence, and an infringement on the rights on law-abiding Americans.
I don’t get it either, but there you go.
The men I cited in my example, Democrats who did so much for the defense of our country, weren’t all war heroes by any stretch. Marshall was a general, and Kennedy a PT boat skipper, true. And Truman commanded artillery in France during World War I. But Scoop Jackson and John Stennis didn’t have meaningful military service to speak of.
All of these men, however, contributed greatly to the military strength and foreign policy robustness of our country after their military service, if they served. This contribution is what matters. It is their mark on history.
Dick Cheney didn’t serve in the military. But as chief of staff to President Ford, as a congressman, and as Secretary of Defense in a time of great transition, he served the country and its defense needs well.
In the Cabinet, Powell and Rumsfeld come to mind right away as veterans. Powell, of course, had a distinguished Army career. When you ask where the Republican war heroes are, well, he’s one. Rumsfeld is a retired Navy reserve captain, and flew as an active duty pilot from 1954 to 1957.
It has been a criticism of Kerry that, because of his experience as a veteran, he should have taken the forefront on defense and veterans’ matters more as a Senator. But he introduced very little legislation in this area, content to follow, rather than lead.
I think the Democrats in general follow, rather than lead, on defense. Bill Clinton saw fit to appoint a Republican as Secretary of Defense. Imagine, one of the top three most important Cabinet posts, held by the opposing party. And done so, in large part, to give credibility to the administration on defense matters.
It gives credence to the perception among many Americans that Democrats just don’t care about defense. That their eyes glaze over during the meetings over weapons procurement, and they stare at their watches wondering when they can get out of the committee meeting and go do something fun. Like, say, revoke tax breaks on the rich and pass gun control legislation, for example.
If the Democrats want to win, they need to correct this perception. And they can’t correct it with anti-Bush howling.
Instead of dealing with stereotypes, why not go with known facts?
John Kerry: Vietnam veteran. Has repeatedly killed enemy soldiers under combat conditions.
George W. Bush: Avoided serving in Vietnam. Did not retaliate for USS Cole bombing for fear that would “embolden the terrorists” and make them attack again. Received a series of PDBs about imminent terrorst attacks inside the United States and did nothing.
IMO, anyone still holding the notion that George W. Bush is strong on defense is either uninformed or delusional.
John Kerry is a war hero. He is due all honor and regard due him for being one. This does not, however, necessarily make him anything of a defense expert, or a leader in war.
George W. Bush, on the other hand, has the respect of a lot of veterans and soldiers, including me. He has that because he has people under him who understand fully the challenges we’re facing now. He also genuinely seems to have the well being of the troops foremost in his mind.
There is nothing more demoralizing in war than defeat. John Kerry, as a Vietnam vet, should remember this. I fear, though, he has forgotten.
"Former aide says US president made up his mind to go to war with Iraq long before 9/11, then ordered his staff to find an excuse "
"According to the former aluminium mogul and longstanding Republican moderate who was fired from the US Treasury in December 2002, the administration came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification. "
It’s important to remember we only have so many military resources, money and good will to use, so where to best spend it?
A) In Afghanistan were OBL is, and where AQ roams
B) In the US to beef up our security infrastrucure
C) Iraq, were SH was not really a threat. (with no WMD and NO links to AQ please feel free to tell me what exactly made him a threat)
I go for A & B, in fact, most of the planet was for this as well.
Well you can tell me why, or I can assume you supported it because SH was an asshole who ruled his people with an iron fist. You hate to see pain and suffering in this cruel world of ours and thought going in would fix everything.
Let’s go ask our 700 dead troops, and those 10,000 dead Iraqis how things are going…
Could?
Use your brain, does it seem like it’s reduced terrorism? Look at the Madrid bombings, look at all the people getting blown up by car bombs in Iraq. Just a few days ago 68 people including 20 school children were killed. Look at all the outrage globally. Do more people or less people like the US now? The hatred for us in the middle east is at an all time high. Iraq is fanning the flames of their rage, what color is the sky in your world?
The invasion is US, the sanctions were the UN. I’ll go ahead and say from a PR point of view, the invasion is pissing people off specifically at the US a lot more then the sanctions did.
While horrible in their own right, none of these compare to an immediate threat of biological, chemical, or nuclear attack on the US. Under such threat is the only instance in which we should attack preemptively.
Which is exactly why we should have never gone into Iraq, and focus our resources on things that actually threaten us. Take North Korea, who if they wanted could probably nuke Alaska, today, right now. Saddam was never even near that level, he was years away, yet we squander hundreds of billions, thousands in combined casualties, and shitloads of international good will for what? To eliminate a threat? No, this is a total waste.
We’ve also turned allies against us. You think if some AQ dude ends up in France, they’re going to bust their humps to help us out? Remember all that freedom fry bullshit? Well they do.
Regarding your reasons for invasion
This is where we have what used to be some of our international friends to lean on SH. We tighten the box on him, we offer a carrot or two, we bring light to the situation, we get other Arab countries involved. There are other options that would be better recieved globally than an invasion. We’re walking a tightrope here, don’t forget that.
And yes, I realize we tried a lot of those things, we should have tried a bit harder, or done things a bit differently. Once we’ve exhausted all our logical options, we take the case to the world (as opposed to telling them the deal, and insulting them when they don’t jump).
Look at the first Gulf War, now that was a coalition of the willing.
These guys are a dime a dozen, so I assume you think we should remove them all?
Again what about North Korea? Kim Jong Electric boogaloo is even worse then SH, as he actually threatens people with nukes, and he really has them!
Yes, so Libya and Iran have secret nuclear programs, and we attack Iraq, who, doesn’t have one.
Not that we should, but wouldn’t it have made more sense to attack Libya or Iran?
I value all the lives lost in this stupid waste of a war.
Mr. Moto I think that Mr. Bush better watch his ass as far the support of the troops goes. From my own experience as an unwilling participant in the US Marine Corps, I have seen more, and more spouses move to what you would probably consider “the Dark side” as promises of reunions are denied, and troops are being deployed for too long, and without relief. Every time the military fucks up a paycheck, Bush loses a vote. And I’m sure you know how many times that happens.
You may be surprised to the power of suggestion these spouses have to their tired, cranky Marine. However, I don’t think you’d be surprised, how quickly an opinion can change after you’ve been shot at for over a year. Last time I was at Camp Pendleton, and keep in mind that was over six months ago, people were already bitching about the length of deployment.
You’re probably closer to this than I am, as I avoid all Marine Corps functions, but I suspect you too are seeing some grumbling in the ranks.
[QUOTE=World Eater] Umm dude you sure you linky the correct article?
Yes. I purposely quoted one that was critical of Bush to show, even in it, WMD was not the primary motivation for getting rid of SH, as per your contention.
From the article:
"… came to office determined to oust Saddam and used the September 11 attacks as a convenient justification. "
I’m not happy that this is how it went down, I wish there was somebody other than Bush president who had a strong conviction to invade Iraq and better coalition building skills and could have convinced the world to invade for other reasons. But my outrage for the method is much less than my outrage for the horror of the SH regime continuing for another decade.
**Well you can tell me why, or I can assume you supported it because SH was an asshole who ruled his people with an iron fist. You hate to see pain and suffering in this cruel world of ours and thought going in would fix everything. ** Yep that’s about it. Of course I would be a fool to think it would fix everything,
Let’s go ask our 700 dead troops, and those 10,000 dead Iraqis how things are going…
Or we could ask the hundreds of thousands who will no longer starve to death.
** Could?
Use your brain, does it seem like it’s reduced terrorism? Look at the Madrid bombings, look at all the people getting blown up by car bombs in Iraq. Just a few days ago 68 people including 20 school children were killed. Look at all the outrage globally. Do more people or less people like the US now? The hatred for us in the middle east is at an all time high. Iraq is fanning the flames of their rage, what color is the sky in your world?**
It’s a short-term spike (but that’s just my opinion). A terrible spike to be sure, and I’d hope I’d have the courage to stay with my convictions if I or a loved one was a victim.
**The invasion is US, the sanctions were the UN. I’ll go ahead and say from a PR point of view, the invasion is pissing people off specifically at the US a lot more then the sanctions did. **
Short-term, probably, long term sanctions are much worse. How do you think people will feel seeing year after year humiliation, grinding poverty, starvation, and constant air strikes? Which is exactly why we should have never gone into Iraq, and focus our resources on things that actually threaten us. Take North Korea, who if they wanted could probably nuke Alaska, today, right now. Saddam was never even near that level, he was years away, yet we squander hundreds of billions, thousands in combined casualties, and shitloads of international good will for what? To eliminate a threat? No, this is a total waste.
What resources would you suggest for NK? Aim more nukes at it, more money to NMD?
We’ve also turned allies against us. You think if some AQ dude ends up in France, they’re going to bust their humps to help us out?
Yes they will. They are a civlised country. You’ve pissed off allies, not turned them against you.
**This is where we have what used to be some of our international friends to lean on SH. We tighten the box on him, we offer a carrot or two, we bring light to the situation, we get other Arab countries involved. There are other options that would be better recieved globally than an invasion. We’re walking a tightrope here, don’t forget that.
And yes, I realize we tried a lot of those things, we should have tried a bit harder, or done things a bit differently. Once we’ve exhausted all our logical options, we take the case to the world (as opposed to telling them the deal, and insulting them when they don’t jump).**
Short of double secret sanctions, it seems pretty much everything has been tried. Now it’s coming to light how much money SH embezelled from the oil for food program. There wasn’t really any carrots bigger than his mutli-billon dollar graft that could be dangled. It was about time USA told the world the deal. I wish there was a better alternative than war, but there just wasn’t. Saddam was Saddam. We would be condemning Iraqis to decades more of misery at the least.
Further down the road, what do you think would happen when Saddam was no longer leader? His two sons were every bit as evil as their father, but I don’t think they had nearly the smarts. Eventually, there would be a violent power struggle orders of magnitude worse than anything happening right now.
**These guys are a dime a dozen, so I assume you think we should remove them all?
Again what about North Korea? Kim Jong Electric boogaloo is even worse then SH, as he actually threatens people with nukes, and he really has them!**
Yes I think we should get rid of them all, but we can’t without serious casulties.
Not that we should, but wouldn’t it have made more sense to attack Libya or Iran? No. Kadaffi has been very coorperative lately, and we should let the moderate movement in Iran flower by itself.
And we’re winning in Iraq?
Yes. Doesn’t mean there won’t be casulties.
Here’s an interesting poll from September. Averaged from two cities, 62% of Iraqis said the invasion was worth it. One of those cities polled was Sadr city, there, a whopping 78% said the invasion was worth it.
http://www.cpa-iraq.org/audio/20031109a_Gallup-ousting-saddam.pdf
BTW, I’m Canadian so I don’t really have an opinion about Bush on any other matters than Iraq. I believe history will vindicate him and shame the rest of us. I realise also that since I’m not American, I don’t have to worry about reprisal attacks as you do.
Oh, sorry. I thought you were being sarcastic. So many Bush supporters here would never admit it was a mistake to rush into Iraq like he did, I guess I wasn’t expecting you to admit it.
Huh? That doesn’t answer my question at all. I asked what specific details he needs to add to his plan. You are criticizing him for not having a detailed plan, so why can’t you tell us what he’s supposedly leaving out? “Shoot some holes through it” is not a specific course of action at all.
I can’t believe you would criticize him for not saying “we have no good options”. You REALLY want him to say that? I am completely sure that, were Kerry to say that, he would be mercilessly criticized by the right for being negative. Even in this thread, everyone is bitching about how he’s (supposedly) just criticizing Bush, and not focusing on his own positives. But now you’re criticizing him for not being negative. You just can’t win, can you?
“How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”
–John Kerry
A mistake, get it? When you fight the wrong war, defeat and demoralisation are inevitable, no matter what you do. Was Kerry denigrating the troops in his testimony? NO. The responsibility for avoiding prosecuting the wrong wars lies with the leaders. He’s made that clear, then and now. I can’t believe you don’t get that, yet you insist on spreading that GOP cognitive dissonance/smear meme in thread after thread on this topic.
Of course, right war or wrong war, it works out well for defense contractors, right Moto?
You know he was a Yalie, right? Anyway, it’s a chuckle to think you are using Buckley as an example of “the ignorant and uneducated, the ‘common man’”…
True enough: Call a man a fool and you lose his vote. But play a man for a fool… well, that’s what the right wing excels at. You certainly win on that point.
Believe it or not, here are some views people have run (and won) on:
“Quit looking at the symbols. Get out and get a job. Quit shooting each other. Quit having illegitimate babies.”
State Rep. John Graham Altman (R-SC), addressing African-American concerns about the ‘symbol’ of the Confederate Flag, New York Times, 01-24-97
“Two things made this country great: White men & Christianity. The degree these two have diminished is in direct proportion to the corruption and fall of the nation. Every problem that has arisen (sic) can be directly traced back to our departure from God’s Law and the disenfranchisement of White men.”
State Rep. Don Davis (R-NC), emailed to every member of the North Carolina House and Senate, reported by the Fayetteville Observer, 08-22-01
Why should we hear about body bags and deaths and how many, what day it’s gonna happen? It’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Barbara Bush, said on ‘Good Morning America’ the day before the Iraq war started, New York Times, 01-13-03
“I’m the commander - see, I don’t need to explain - I don’t need to explain why I say things. That’s the interesting thing about being the President. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don’t feel like I owe anybody an explanation.”
Intelligent people know that the president has little, if any, effect on the jobs situation.
Depends on how you measure it, but I agree that it ain’t good.
No one expected us to be in and out in a year. If we have as many troops there 3 years from now as we have there now, you can call it a quagmire. Intelligent people realize it’s way too early to call it a quagmire.
I wasnt ranting on how can GWB be leading in the polls because im a lefty, I was ranting because GWB is just a bumbling knuckle head. I want to know, REALLY want know, what it is that inspires people about him. Someone, anyone, tell me that when you see Bush giving a speech, or just walking for God’s sake, you feel confident and inspired.
I just dont get how this man could be beating ANYONE in a poll!!! I am truly boggled…
Actually, a lot of people (including me, though I know now that I was wrong) thought that’s what the June 30 deadline was supposed to be. So it seems that there are a lot of people, probably wrongly, now expecting all troops to be out by then. It’s rather odd, how that happened…
Not the way I remember it. IIRC, there were threads here where at least one of the smug posters in this thread when some of us ‘loony lefts’ were suggesting that invading IRaq wasn’t maybe such a good idea, that “what if it were 4 weeks of fighting and Saddam would be ousted” and a few more months of mop up gee, wouldn’t that be worth going to war w/Iraq? Cetainly the reservists and the troops who just had their tours extended weren’t planning on it being more than a year. the fact that the Pentagon has had to extend the tours beyond what was planned suggests also that, well, gosh, the folks in charge of planning weren’t really planning such an extended expansive stay, don’t ya think?
Primary motivation and primary justification are two totally different things.
Let’s pull an example out of thin air for example.
Primary motivation for Bush to invade Iraq <putting on my tinfoil hat>
He tried to kill his dad.
Wanted to kick someone’s ass after 9/11, and Iraq would be easy target (so they thought)
That sweet, precious, black gold for his oil buddies.
Haliburton, and some fat plump reconstruction checks.
Primary Justification for Bush to invade Iraq
They have biological and chemical weapons that can be used on us.
They are aiding and harboring Al qaeda, and could possibly give them WMD
See how this works?
Neither am I. We should go after the people who actually did it, and we all know who that wasn’t.
Someone “other” then Bush would have realized that invading Iraq would only divert our attention from the true “war on terror”. Someone “other” then Bush wouldn’t even try to convince the world to invade for other reasons.
There are atrocities being commited all over the place. To a certain degree, we have to leave these places alone. We don’t have the resources to save the world, and we’re not even saving the world, we’re Americanizing it.
Or we could ask the hundreds of millions affected by this war. People now walking around with targets on their backs.
Stay with your convictions, but at some point you to might have to cut bait. Reading in the paper today I saw an important question that was asked. What if we hand power over June 30th and the Iraqis tell us to get the hell out right away? Sen. John McCain said if they want us out, we got to go, right then, pull every last troop out. Connie Rice said we would stay because the Iraqis can’t possibly protect themselves, so we would overrule them, because we have to stay indefinitely.
What do you think about that?
Well aside of the airstrikes, (which were only on military targets), you’ve just described North Korea perfectly. Those people have been oppressed for a hell of a long time. Shouldn’t we help them?
I suggest we acknowledge that NK is the real problem and start figuring out a plan. Pretty much all of Bush’s Iraq rhetoric can be applied to NK, with the exception that it’s actually true.
Civilized like America right? Like when we shut out French and German companies from reconstruction contracts because they wouldn’t join our little invasion? What? You don’t think that bullshit cuts both ways?
They’ll help us, they wont go out of their way to help us though, let’s leave it at that.
Had we waited a few more months, we would have had much more of Europe on board with us. They suggested an additional 60 days for inspections, and they would have signed off on a resolution. Of course we needed to get in before that hot summer heat fucked up all our military toys, so it was either go at it alone, or wait another 9 months or so.
The additional legitimacy alone was worth waiting 2 months.
This is exactly why people don’t like us, and terrorists blow us up. Nothing will change while we maintain this attitude.
People ain’t going to like this but I’ll say it anyway. Forget about the iraqis, and sink that $87 billion into the US, that way we don’t condemn Americans to decades more of misery. As long as SH wasn’t about to drop the nuke on us, I’m more concerned with Americans then Iraqis. It should also be noted that Iraqis are more concerned about Iraqis, not Americans.
As long as they don’t nuke us or give any stuff to terrorists, I could care less, Americans have far more immediate problems.
Serious casualties? What the fuck is going on in Iraq at the moment? A love fest? I consider the numbers coming out of Iraq to be pretty damn serious.
No. Hell no, you aren’t going to have it both ways.
At the time we started this war, Iran, Libya and North Korea had hidden nuclear programs, Iraq did not. If we had attacked Libya instead of Iraq, you might be saying “no, Saddam has been very cooperative lately”. The point is that Iran, Libya and North Korea had hidden nuclear programs, Iraq did not.
Yes, we’re winning? Exactly what are we winning? The scorn and derision of the world? The who “can grow their deficit the fastest contest”?
You do realize things have changed just a wee bit from Sept right?
You’re lucky, the Sept 11th planes missed my office building by a few hundred feet. If someone was wrestling the hijackers or ditched the plane a few hundred feet short I wouldn’t be here (of course more people would have lived, so maybe not a bad tradeoff). Instead I had front row seats as I’m pretty high up 3 blocks away, watching people jump to their deaths all morning. :rolleyes:
I want to get the people that did this, and then I want us to shape up so this never happens again.
Hey World Eater I’m not trying to be a jackoff here (it just comes naturally ). But we will keep disagreeing on a lot of this because we both have different starting points. You are starting from a question about preventing terrorism. I am looking at it from a long term ME stability point of view (hey I even remember Collunsbury saying he thought this may lead to long-term stability). I totally appreciate your position, you’re a New Yorker for goodness sakes and are much more likely to be in the crosshairs than me. I can hardly comprehend the horror you guys experienced. It’s a bit like me trying to convince my big buddy to fight the school bully because it will be good for the school. I’m not the one going to get a bloody nose.
I certainly can’t say for sure Bush’s real motivation going to war. I can only be certain about my primary reason for supporting. I gave you the quote above about Bush wanting to get rid of the bad guy. For what it’s worth, my brother is in the foreign service and for a while was working on the America desk. This entailed going to Washington periodically for meetings with generals and high level officials. He said he was really suprised about how altruistic many of them were in regards to Iraq.
Someone “other” then Bush would have realized that invading Iraq would only divert our attention from the true “war on terror”. Someone “other” then Bush wouldn’t even try to convince the world to invade for other reasons.
And here our different perspectives come up again. It’s other reasons that I primarily support. I sure would rather we could convince the world on those merits, but I’ll take what I can get. Of course, it’s not my president pulling the switcheroo so I can see how this would make you angrier than me.
**Or we could ask the hundreds of millions affected by this war. People now walking around with targets on their backs. **
I agree there is fear, there also was during the cold war. I believe it will pass.
[/cut and paste … ]
**People ain’t going to like this but I’ll say it anyway. Forget about the iraqis, and sink that $87 billion into the US, that way we don’t condemn Americans to decades more of misery. As long as SH wasn’t about to drop the nuke on us, I’m more concerned with Americans then Iraqis. It should also be noted that Iraqis are more concerned about Iraqis, not Americans.
As long as they don’t nuke us or give any stuff to terrorists, I could care less, Americans have far more immediate problems. **
In the real world we have to choose between evils. It sucks, but there’s nothing we can do about it. You’ve made your choice, and I made mine. It’s possible if I was closer to ground zero, I would make the same choice as you. Mine is short-term terror for long-term stability.
**Stay with your convictions, but at some point you to might have to cut bait. Reading in the paper today I saw an important question that was asked. What if we hand power over June 30th and the Iraqis tell us to get the hell out right away? Sen. John McCain said if they want us out, we got to go, right then, pull every last troop out. Connie Rice said we would stay because the Iraqis can’t possibly protect themselves, so we would overrule them, because we have to stay indefinitely.
What do you think about that?**
I am willing to keep an open mind. This will be a major difficulty, but I believe the coalition should stay. Remember how the British soldiers were being stoned in Basra a few days ago. That was because Iraqis were angry they were’nt being protected well enough. I don’t think that desire for safety will change after the political handover. It must be handled carefully so you aren’t seen as installing a puppet goverment for sure.
**Well aside of the airstrikes, (which were only on military targets), you’ve just described North Korea perfectly. Those people have been oppressed for a hell of a long time. Shouldn’t we help them?
I suggest we acknowledge that NK is the real problem and start figuring out a plan. Pretty much all of Bush’s Iraq rhetoric can be applied to NK, with the exception that it’s actually true.**
I bet there’s hundreds of political and military brains working on it. Plans ranging from sanctions to full on war.
**Civilized like America right? Like when we shut out French and German companies from reconstruction contracts because they wouldn’t join our little invasion? What? You don’t think that bullshit cuts both ways?
They’ll help us, they wont go out of their way to help us though, let’s leave it at that.**
I think you underestimate your allies, but there’s not really anything else I can say about that.
Had we waited a few more months, we would have had much more of Europe on board with us. They suggested an additional 60 days for inspections, and they would have signed off on a resolution. Of course we needed to get in before that hot summer heat fucked up all our military toys, so it was either go at it alone, or wait another 9 months or so.
Which of course is why they wanted to stall for another 60 days. Put the Americans off for a year and hope the political winds change before desicion time again.
**Serious casualties? What the fuck is going on in Iraq at the moment? A love fest? I consider the numbers coming out of Iraq to be pretty damn serious.
No. Hell no, you aren’t going to have it both ways.
At the time we started this war, Iran, Libya and North Korea had hidden nuclear programs, Iraq did not. If we had attacked Libya instead of Iraq, you might be saying “no, Saddam has been very cooperative lately”. The point is that Iran, Libya and North Korea had hidden nuclear programs, Iraq did not.**
My point is, we don’t have to resort to war with Libya and Iran and you’d get even less world support to attack them. We can’t resort to war with NK. It’s cold, but Iraq is not serious casulties. Seoul turned into a parking lot is serious casulties.
You do realize things have changed just a wee bit from Sept right?
Yes, and they will change again.
I referenced that poll because Sadr city is one of the main towns of Moqtada Sadr. The majority don’t like him. In fact they complained to the Americans right at the beginning to get rid of him and his thugs. It seems like he is making a power play, trying to be another Ayotolla Kohmeni (sp?) or something. The Americans must put him down.
**You’re lucky, the Sept 11th planes missed my office building by a few hundred feet. If someone was wrestling the hijackers or ditched the plane a few hundred feet short I wouldn’t be here (of course more people would have lived, so maybe not a bad tradeoff). Instead I had front row seats as I’m pretty high up 3 blocks away, watching people jump to their deaths all morning. :rolleyes: **
Sorry, that’s really terrible. I hope you never have to see it again.
Anyway, it’s a chuckle to think you are using Buckley as an example of “the ignorant and uneducated, the ‘common man’”…