What kind of clarifying questions should I’ve asked?
Why did you equate “Islamic world” with the pronoun “they” in your clause, “they killed the whole bunch of us?”
You don’t want to jump to conclusions except when you want to jump to conclusions?
Also, you completely misunderstood or trying to misinterpret my statement that “windows of opportunity” exist between honest and reasonable people always and forever. Self-serving fanatics like UbL are trying to close them, while self-serving US bureaucrats are trying to bamboozle us with yelps, "The window is opening! The window is closing!” and they both can go to hell, hand in hand. This simple truth is supported by the cites tomndebb has provided, while you refused to do so.
[/QUOTE]
I like to believe there is a fundamental difference between lying about one’s sex life (Clinton) and lying to start/justify a war that has resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of people (Bush). Now, granted, we have no way of knowing whether a President Kerry will someday tell a lie that will lead to a similarly horrific and immoral event, but we do know that Bush is capable of such a deed.
That reason alone is sufficient for me to cast my vote for someone who is better-suited to replace Bush in November 2004. All of my other reasons for opposing Bush are merely icing on the cake.
Of course there is a fundamental difference, but that aside, suppose if FDR would lie in 1937 that Hitler is close to producing A-bomb, somehow organize the per-emptive invasion of Germany and thus prevent many horrors from happening, what would be your opinion of such a highly hypothetical scenario?
I think many people assumed that when GWB went into office, he was going to go after Saddam. I know I did. The only question was what the excuse was going to be. I’m among those that aren’t particularly disturbed about the Iraq war. I think the war casualties are probably less than Saddam himself was inflicting on the populace of Iraq. The most disturbing thing about the whole deal is the stupid lies Bush and his staff have told.
RTFirefly referenced Watergate’s similarity to current events. I’ll agree. If Nixon had simply said something like: “Yeah, we broke in there. It’s dirty politics. Both sides do stuff like that” the whole deal would have blown over.
Bush should have just said we’re going to remove Saddam because he’s a dangerous despot. Maybe not a real popular statement, but more palatable than all the lies.
I’ll be watching Kerry closely. I might vote for him, or if nothing else, I can always write in the name of a Communist Party candidate.(If there is one this time) I did that once when I didn’t want either major candidate. There are only 68 registered voters at my polling place, so the community then spent years trying to figure out who the dirty commie was.
I’d still disapprove, since it’s the principle of the matter that’s involved. If FDR wants to invade Germany to prevent the atrocities against the Jews, then he should come out and say as such to the public. An open and democratic society requires an informed populace, so it may make informed choices in its laws and rulers; lying to the citizenry is IMO fundamentally undemocratic.
Okay, well feel free to rebutt whatever I said that needs rebutting. And if you like, you could go ahead and answer the question about why you hold the entire Islamic world responsible for 9-11.
If the electorate does not have the ability to provide informed consent, then the government has no just powers and has become a threat to America’s Liberty.
Who said anything about the Jews? Nobody in US wanted to know what was beginning to happen to the Jews by 1937. Germany was way in violation of all sorts of international treaties with it’s military build-up already. Just make up a story about Hitler developing a super-bomb (there were grounds for it) and being close to completion, and then invade and occupy Germany. If that would happen we would forever remain completely ignorant of how much horror was spared to the world. Still disapprove? Still insist on principle?
I think I already demonstrated sufficiently that I do not “hold the entire Islamic world responsible for 9-11” in my previous posts. I “went for it” on my own initiative, so your prompting is way too late.
Damn straight I do. If FDR wanted to invade Germany to pre-emptively prevent Hitler from deploying a super-bomb, then send the spies and intelligence-gatherers to build the case, and then present it to the public. Again, an open and democratic society requires an informed electorate, not “making up stories” to shill the masses.
What frightens me is that it seems like you sincerely believe that lying to the public – especially for an event as traumatizing as a war – is a perfectly acceptable means of governance.
Sorry, I never tried to hold “the moral high ground”.
What I believe is the least what should frighten you. Think of all the wars in history: how many of them were not based on lies and with complete support of the population? How many of them were started by US?
BTW, I always opposed Bush on overdoing WMD cause, right from the start; it just doesn’t bother me as much as it does some people. Actually, it bothers me extremely very, very little.
That he was going after Saddam and not terrorists was obvious to everyone outside the US... I am still impressed by how ignorant the regular US joe is in relation to this.
As for Iraq... no excuses were necessary. Just about the whole western hemisphere had no love for Saddam. Making a REAL case for war was hard... but not impossible. Making a somewhat Real case was pretty achievable... IF the US president were a reasonable and intelligent person and his minders didn't hate multilateralism. So what does Bush do ? He makes a FAKE case for the war ! Duh ! That is what I call offending other's intelligence.
I'm no warmonger and I think Saddam deserved to be taken down. Certainly taking US troops off Saudi Arabia was a good reason. Stopping a cruel embargo was a reason. Reducing tension in the area was a good reason. Saving Iraqi lives was a good reason... etc...etc... Taking down Saddam while there is nothing else to take care of would have been easy and everyone would have helped out. Arabs included. Still there was this thing called terrorism that they seemed to forget about.
So yes Iraq was at the wrong time and wrong way.
I find it strange: can ANYONE make any sort of case that plans to invade Iraq didn’t hinder the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Read Clarke’s book on exactly what happened in Afghanistan. Instead of the “let’s get im!” image we all remember, the reality was that we went in tenatively, gradually, and telegraphed many of our major punches. We were clearly holding back, and the apparent reason was that we had to conserve our strength to be able to switch over to the real operations in Iraq, which was already on the agenda. Indeed, Clarke claims, and Woodward’s book confirms, instead of focusing most on meetings about finding out if more attacks were planned and how we could protect ourselves, the days after the attacks were spent battling over whether or not we should attack Iraq. In retrospect, this was an enourmous waste of time, based on precisely no evidence, and years of evidence that Iraq had cut off efforts to attack the US after we punished them in 1993.
We’ve spent so much more money, time, and personnel on Iraq than on the War on Terror elsewhere that it’s almost laughable.
Maybe assisinate him, sure. But bush ran on the idea that the US should not be in the business of nation building. And when he said this, he was at the same time working to figure out how to get the U.S. involved in the biggest nation-building project since Japan, Germany, and Korea.
You’re just full to overflowing with logical fallacies aintcha.
No matter how many times you’ve done something wrong in the past, it still doesn’t make it right.
