So, no actual terrorist acts need be committed, nor any intent to commit terrorist acts demonstrated? And by “hostile” you don’t mean “actively belligerent” in an aggressive sense? Are all of these qualifications required for a nation to be a legitimate target in the war on terror, or are some of these essential and others more or less elective?
Because, you know, it does kind of seem like it boils down to “The Leader said it, I believe it, and that settles it!”
I’ve said it before and now seems a good time to say it again. Being able to trust your representatives and having an open and honest, preferably transparent, relationship with them is a REQUIREMENT for a functional democracy. Aggregating the political power in representatives who decieve their constituents is an oligarchy where the representatives hold the power. The constituents are mererly surfs to be placated with the circus maximus or some other tool to draw their attention away from what is actually being done with the political power they have vested in their “representatives.”
This is the biggest problem I have with the Bush admin. Rather than lay all the cards out on the table with the public and letting them decide if taking down Saddam was something they felt was a legitimate goal, the admin spins, distorts, creatively edits source material, and at least some members flat out lie to the electorate. That’s not a democracy. That’s an oligarchy. The only saving grace is the possibility of them getting kicked out at the next election, but that(given curent incumbent re-election rates) is a rather faint hope.
Enjoy,
Steven
Yet Bush was re-elected.
Either the electorate doesn’t share your expectation, or they don’t believe your characterization.
He won with a close margin for a “war time president”, historically speaking this is a shame to Bush; and he did so with the help of a media that could not say no to smears to Kerry and to Gays and to virtually ignore the evidence on incompetence and failures of this administration. Fear, on multiple fronts, won the day then.
Or they are ignorant of the deceit. Or they voted for him based on other issues. Or maybe they just hated/feared/had once had a ball stolen from them on the playground by Kerry, or any number of other reasons. Imputing stances on the trustworthiness of a candidate based on a single vote which was an aggregate of feelings/thoughts about a candidate on a myriad of topics is going from the general to the specific and is a fallacy. We know a larger number of people voted for Bush than for Kerry. Arguing that specific determinations, such as the electorate believing Bush did not lie or that they don’t expect him to be honest with them, from nothing more than the vote tallies is a non sequitor.
Enjoy,
Steven
Including you and scott.
Lekatt, there is a perfectly good pitting going on right now. I would be happy to hear you clarify this, either here, or there.
Maybe that’s a gross understatement.
’luc already raised some salient comments on this point. I’ll add a couple more myself.
1-Please provide evidence that Saddam was currently “hostile to the US and her allies.” And, just as importantly, factual evidence that he had the military means to carry out any threats issued. Moreover, what did said “hostily” entail? IOW, exactly what actions did Saddam undertake in the years since GW-I, that could possibly justify that label.
Mind you, I am not speaking of faith-based “evidence” nor Mrs Cleo-like pronouncements about future undertakings, but rather substantive, factual proof.
What are those other reasons, Sam. Again, specifics, not hand-waiving. Because you’ve set such a wide filter that it’s almost impossible to find a nation that doesn’t fit into that criteria one way or another. No need – I think – to rehash any number of cites that pretty much debunk what you’re trying to insinuate. However, if the real goal is to convince yourself, well then, hat’s off. you’ve obviously done a bang-up job.
Bottom line, Saddam (and by extention, his fiefdom) was a secular dictator, whose ideology was in direct contrast to OBL’s warped fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran. In fact, so much at odds they were, that it is hardly a stretch to call the enemies – each hoping for the fall of the other. And in OBL’s case, actually contribuiting to anti-Saddam movements within Iraq.
As for your comment on the Axis of Evil nations, I’ve noticed you’ve amplified the original to include Lybia. Wouldn’t have anything to do with attributing the succesful negotiations with Moammar Quaddhafi to the PNAC/Neocon strategy, would it? Becuase an erudite a man such as yourself surely knows better.
Then again, no doubt nations such as the aforemention Lybia, plus Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan and even China, must have felt somewhat slighted by not being included in the Evil Axis to begin with. Good on you for including at leat one of them.
First off, thank you for giving enough credit to realize that my Big Dog/Iraq comment was limited to those nations that were already part of the PNAC plan – and Lybia, you very own ad-lib. However and at the rosk of sounding like a broken record, I again need ask for credible evidence that actually conflates the terrorist threats coming from those countries you mention into one huge TWAT. And no, I am not feeding you a straight line for you to pounce on, I really, really want to know what makes you think the way you do on this matter.
Two points:
1-Being boastful and arrogant is a direct conflict to dialogue. If you think you’re going to intimidate the world by acting so, you’ve got quite a Jack-In-The-Box surprise coming your way. For as much as some like to repeat the fact that the US has the most powerful military force in the history of mankind – a truism I can’t deny – fact is, you are in a position to win as many conventional wars as you’d like to get into, but short of a genocide campaign, those same forces are hardly invincible. I don’t believe I need tell you why.
2-Everything in this world we inhabit must come to an end. That much is an undeniable fact. No Empire – and I’ll note that each and everyone of them was in its time “the most powerful force on earth” – has outlived their reign. And the Neocon’s “freshly-minted” idea of same is yet another fantasy of the same priciple.
IOW, the implementation of your ideology has as much chance as does a snowball in hell.
Know what? Often times I hate being right. This time I flat-out hope I am wrong. But I seriouly doubt it.
~Moi
Considering that I was one of the first to realize the power and influence of the PNAC on the current Adm, I’d say I am well aware of the Neocon ideology, yes.
Beyond the fact that I find the whole concept – maintain and augment American hegemony – delusional for reasons already stated, there’s also the the realization that no matter how it’s sold the odds of it coming to fruition are somewhere between slim and none – if history is any guide.
Goes without saying that you’re welcomed to keep the faith.
“Measured”? By whom? Surely not by those that refuse to do body counts. “Acceptable”? By whom? Anyone ask the dead?
I can certainly see why you’ve been trying so hard to derail the conversation.
Ideology’s a bitch. And Jingoism its pimp.
kind of highlights the downside of "
You are with us or against us…
if the behaviours of the declarant are fundamentally odious, it becomes rather an invitation to form up a coalition to contain the rogue elephant
(ed note:poor metaphor, but I like the elephant part…)
I get the feeling that you haven’t really read my posts closely. Or maybe not at all.
Do you really need cites that Saddam was in violation of the inspection regime for twelve years? Or that Iraq was hostile to the US? And Israel? And the Kurds? And Kuwait?
:thinks for a moment, then shakes his head:
I’m not going to provide cites for any of that. If you genuinely disagree that Iraq and Saddam were providing ample reason to believe that my assertions about their attitudes were true, re-listing isn’t going to help.
Feel free to interpret that as you like.
Er - i’m Shodan, not Sam Stone. I’m flattered to have been confused with him, but…
A “wide filter”? Again, the mind boggles.
Put it like this - name one other nation that invaded Kuwait, was defeated, agreed to abide by a system of inspections, systematically violated those inspections, used poison gas against one of their ethnic minorities, engaged in systematic torture and murder, and supported terrorism against Israel, and I will agree that the filter is too wide.
Just one.
If possible, can I ask that we stick to what I said, not what you think I am trying to insinuate. I am trying rather hard to be precise. Do me the favor, if you like, of responding to what I say instead of what you want me to have said.
In which case, al Queda must have rejoiced exceedingly at the fall of Saddam. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, right?
Well, the Chinese do seem to have reacted badly to Bush’s speech. Although possibly not for the reasons you mention, solely.
Regards,
Shodan
Just a nitpick, but I’d like a cite for the last assertion if possible. I was under the impression that Sadaam had offered to pay for suicide bombers’ families, but had never actually coughed up any cash.
That’s pretty much what I was talking about. Making the offer constitutes support for terrorism, IMO. If anyone wants to dispute that suicide bombers in Palestine are terrorists, feel free as long you don’t expect me to be drawn into that either.
Regards,
Shodan
Almost perfectly irrelevent. The agreement in question was an agreement between the UN and Iraq. As has been pointed out to you many, many times. Did the UN pin a sheriff’s badge on America and assign us the responsibility to make such decisions? They did not. Indeed, our attack on Saddam was in direct violation of our sworn duty to abide by the UN Charter which forbids an attack on another soverieign nation save under circumstances of pre-emptive defense, which demands a situation of immediate threat. You can’t drape a mantle of UN legitimacy around our actions while simultaneously violating that legitimacy. (Well, of course, you can, but that does for hypocricy what Stonehenge does for rocks, its like Al Capone justifying the Valentines Day massacre because Bugs Moran was a law breaker…)
Which actions elicited little more from us than a “tut, tut”. Again, hypocrisy on a grand scale.
As do any number of our bestest buddies. Which you already knew, of course.
Now this is a bit more troublesome. Are you suggesting that a state of hostility towards Israel is equivalent to hostility towards us? Are we, then, oblligated by some treaty or agreement to regard Israel as a US protectorate, and the 51st state? Keeping in mind that Israel actually engaged in acts of war against Iraq, wouldn’t you agree that Iraq had every right to regard Israel as a hostile state?
I have enormous sympathy for the plight of Israel, but I am not prepared to regard her plight as being identical to our own. Therefore, your use of this justification is confusing, unless you are proposing precisely that. Are you?
Of course, all of this pales against the single, most sallient fact: we are signatories to the UN Charter. We are therefore obligated to “play by the rules”. Which demand that a member nation may not attack another without an clear and present danger. Even with our laughable military adventure on pipsqueek Grenada, we took care to drape that legitimacy over it, by advancing the chucklesome notion that they were plotting against us. (By the by, how is that Grenada Memorial coming along?..)
All of these objections have been presented to you before. And yet you blandly reassert them as if they were widely accepted as unassailable truth. They are not, they are sad and wearisome attempts to replace a collapsed support beam with toothpicks.
But then saying he supported terrorism in Israel is simply false. Unless you intend to suggest that Bush I supported the Iraqi insurgents who we left to Sadaam’s tender mercies after the first gulf war?
You’re fond of citing this as if it had a meaning that is not only obvious but unassailable. But does it really mean anything more than “Neener, neener, my guys won, y’all better just shut up and take it”? What point *do * you intend to get across, pray tell?
Wrong choice of tense. The world as it existed in early November 2004 is not the same as the world of today, and neither are public attitudes. N.B. his near-rock-bottomed approval ratings. It might be very informative to see a good poll result as to who would win the election today - but would it mean anything to you?
Shodan, it is probably useless to tell you, but the major terrorism sponsor/supporter countries in the Mideast as of the Iraq invasion, besides Afgahnistan, were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Yet Bush didn’t invade them, Bush made them allies. If, as you’d now like to believe, the war was about stopping terrorism, why would you even consider defending Bush’s aiding and comforting our enemies?
That the views and interpretations you offer as unassailable fact are not shared by everyone, and your inability to see these different viewpoint as reasonable people disagreeing is very Pauline Kael-esque.
Before the election, you said essentially the same things you are saying now, and predicted then the demise of President Bush’s administration. You were wrong then - why are you right now?
Funny that. For your replies have little to do with my responses.
To wit:
Note that I italicized the word “currently” in the original post. Though perhaps my syntax wasn’t the best, I don’t think it’s that hard to understand that I was asking for current (meaning, at the time of the invasion) evidence tying Saddam with actual plans and means to attack the US.
And if that wasn’t clear enough, what about the part that I have now underlined for you? Talk about not reading the posts your answering to. :rolleyes:
At any rate, this is your nonresponse:
Besides the points raised by luc:
1-At the time of the invasion, UNMOVIC is on record as saying they were satisfied with the progress of the inspections. Moreover, they also said they were only a few weeks away from final conclusions.
Care to guess what those might have been? Besides, what, exactly, was the pressing need to invade Iraq yesterday? I mean did you really buy into all the propaganda, drones of death, 45 minute missiles to the heart of London, etc? That a third-rate military power such as Iraq had become after GW-1 would be such a menace to the world’s only hyperpower would be risible if the whole sham wasn’t so pathetic. After all, I remeber some members of your Administration rightly saying that if Iraq tried any sort of attack – direct or otherwise – on the US they would rapidly become the world’s biggest parking lot.
2-Hostile to the US? How, exactly? Again, try giving me a factual response. Hand-waving won’t make the question go away. How does a fly scare an elephant?
3-If you really must pounce on Israel’s enemies and all you had on Saddam was his support of suicide bombers, then perhaps you should have turned your guns on SA. For not only do they have the same practice in place, but the great majority of the terrorists that attacked you actually hailed from there, not Iraq – not to mention the fact that OBL gets most of his funding from the Saudis as well.
Again, please provide credible links between Saddam and radical Islam. You won’t, becuase there weren’t any prior to the invasion. It really is that simple.
Of course not – rehashing Republican talking points is not going to cut it. It’s a marketing campaign that is way past it’s sell-by date. So, again, if you’re at all capable, stop the hand-waiving and provide cites that answer the questions asked.
IOW, stop framing the debate with events that have little to do with the time and/or motives of the invasion.
Thanx. I am.
Apologies. But the truth is debating Bush apologists is like debating faceless talking-points. After the first thousand times one reads them they all begin to look the same.
Cite:
QED.
Been over this Bushit too many times to count.
Right you are for once: Iraq creating new breed of jihadists, says CIA
Cheers.
Project much?
I stated it right there in what you quoted. Ignore the unpleasant much, too?
Fair enough. Note, however, that most of the energy people spend in political threads in the SDMB is not specifically directed at trying to convince undecided people, it’s spent disagreeing with points the other side has made, and debating this disagreements. And you CERTAINLY should not (imho) be persuaded towards, or dissuaded from, making political decisions based on the level of stridency that that view’s supporters show. So what if liberals are whiny and conservatives are shrill. That doesn’t make either party automatically worng.
(Note: actually, perhaps we SHOULD be trying to convince undecided voters, as that’s one of very few even remoately plausible practical results that all this arguing could have.)
Ahh, yes, frequently one uses the word “independent” for that, rather that “undecided”, which (to me, at least) has implications of “I will become decided at some point, haven’t yet made up my mind”. That certainly is the root of much misunderstanding here.
Umm, ixnay on the ondescension-cay there, Chet. Where do you get the idea that I (or other SDMBers) can’t handle the idea that there are people who aren’t lavish followers of a given political party? In fact, quite the opposite. If someone came on the board and literally said “I agree with and support X party 100% of the time”, THAT would shock me a lot more than someone being an independent, which there are plenty of.
For instance, I’d say that if I listed all the Big Issues of the day, and had to decide whether my opinion more closely aligned itself with the Democratic or Republican party platform on that position, I’d be about 85% D to 15% R. That’s enough of a disparity that I’m quite comfortable being a registered Democrat, but I certainly am not a blind partisan idiot. Note also that of the 85% in which I’m closer to D than to R, I may not be all that close to D. In fact, there are very few, maybe even zero, issues on which my position aligns perfectly with the Democratic party’s. Nonetheless, I’ve made the choice (perhaps slightly out of laziness and complacency) to be a registered Democrat, figuring that, the two-party system being what it is, that’s the route most likely to lead towards a USA I’ll want to live in in the future.
Note, btw, that I have voted against democractic candidates, although not all that often. For instance, I did not vote for Cruz Bustamante in the California Gubernatorial run-off, because someone I trusted who knew a lot about the situation said that he was a corrupt idiot.
Sure do
Well, maybe metaphorically. I actually know relatively little about his level of personal hygiene.
You will not say you’re against him? Why not? If you voted against him (and I get the impression that you did) doesn’t that mean that you’re against him, kind of by definition? You know, you can be agaisnt Bush without being Reeder. I swear.
See, now that really WOULD blow my partisan little mind 
I agree with this entire paragraph.
If by “find evidence for the impeachment trial” you mean “blow off some steam and enjoy a rousing debate, frequently with a worthy and respected opponent”, then thank you, I will.
Why, that’s the sweetest thing anyone has ever said to me
Well, let’s be clear here. There is certainly a huge divisive split on the board right now over Bush, with a majority being anti-Bush. No sensible observer could deny that. What there is NOT, however, imho, is a state of such hyper-partisan-ness that if someone comes around and says “I dislike Bush, but not as much as you guys do”, that person is going to be descended upon by hordes of poo-flinging Anti-Bush monkeys. I mean, look at you: You came into this thread, said you were undecided, and only one person (me) threw poo at you, and a few people kind of defended you. And I really didn’t throw much poo, and most of it was due to a misunderstanding. Certainly, your name is not engraved on some “enemies of the state” master list maintained by the Cabal of SDMB Liberals.
I have a theory as to why so many people make such hyperbolic statements about the level of partisan division here… in topics like this, there is usually a large majority of anti-Bush posts, and there are usually a quite small number of virulently uncompromisingly unthinkingly anti-Bush screeds (which aren’t necessarily always written by people who are uncompromisingly unthinkingly anti-Bush… sometimes, people are just in bad moods, or are misinterpreting things others have said (as I did with you) and responding with more anger than the situation calls for). Anyhow, so someone reads that thread, and comes away with two impressions: (1) 80% of the posts on that thread were anti-Bush, and (2) there were some really over-the-top insulting rude mean anti-Bush posts in that thread. I think that it’s easy for those two ideas to combine in people’s minds so that they’re left with the impression that 80% of the posts in the thread were over-the-top anti-Bush, which is SIMILAR to the truth, but definitely NOT the truth.
How so? I was just saying that I’d like as many people as possible to oppose Bush, and vote against him (and his party) whenever possible. Of course I think that. Why shouldn’t I?