Care to provide a link to this story. I’m curious about the details.
You, like GW and all his defenders, are suppressing the fact that the intelligence agencies also supplied a bunch of caveats about reliability in information and analysis which were ignored. As you are ignoring them now. It is inconceivable that intelligence could be a “slam dunk” pre-war, and then suddenly turn into “Well, you know, intelligence is never perfect.” when the truth finally is revealed.
Well then, forty lashes on the foreskin for that.
Is that what the Sludge Report says today?
:dubious:
What’s your address, TWOTfan? I’ll loan you my copy of The Lies of George W. Bush, and you can read it at your leisure.
Granted, it’s the original hardcover, and isn’t up-to-date with Bush’s latest lies, but there are still over a hundred to keep you busy.
Depends on the person; the English are generally polite to a fault, but many are curious. The general consensus, not backed up by any real evidence, is that Brits like Yanks individually, but dislike us in groups (especially large tourist groups) and really dislike our current administration.
Again, yes and no; I find in business ‘getting to know you’ chats with prospective clients, it comes up quite often. In the UK, politics is seen as much more appropriate for idle chit-chat than most other topics. For instance, Brits are more likely to talk about politics than their families…
Well, I personally am not giving anyone the pass; it is one of the hugest black marks against Kerry that I can think of, that he voted for the war in Iraq and would do so again, in spite of the now known to be flawed evidence…
But when I try to explain to European friends / coworkers it’s just too complex; sometimes I try to explain the intricacies of the system of government of the US, and sometimes I just say ‘Bush is a Doody-head’ just 'cause it’s easier.
Firstly - thank you all for your opinions, both for and against. I read them all, completely, and truly, thank you.
This is what I was hoping for - a bit of debate. This is what I love about my country, and what I was willing to bleed to defend.
Now to the point - what would you do differently if you were in Bush’s position? That is what I was originally trying to find out, how I would have done it differently, because I didn’t have a clue.
So I think it’s time for a new thread…
Using the above assumption, can you explain why the marches against the attack on Afghanistan saw at most a couple of thousand protestors in European countries, yet the war on Iraq garnered e.g. the largest protest since Bloody Sunday in Ireland, and in London the largest protest in the 2,000-year history of England?
Or could it be that you’re completely wrong about the position of ‘the anti-war crowd’? It’s not very helpful to have that mischaracterisation in your head, since it distorts your comprehension of those whose position you oppose.
[QUOTE=GomiBoy]
Now to the point - what would you do differently if you were in Bush’s position? That is what I was originally trying to find out, how I would have done it differently, because I didn’t have a clue.
QUOTE]
There were UN arms inspectors in Iraq. I would have let them finish the job of finding out there were no chemical and biological weapons stores or production facilities. I would have let them find out there was no nuclear program. I would have let them find out there was no missile system for delivery of weapons that would endanger the US or our allies.
GW, as seems to have been his intent all along if elected, complained that the UN inspectors were incompetent, went to war on flimsy grounds and then had David Kay find out what the UN inspectors were finding. There was no basis, zip, nada, for the weapons claims. So the announced raison du jour for the war was changed, and changed, and changed.
That’s at least one thing different I would have done.
I also wouldn’t emasculate all environmental protection laws. I wouldn’t have argued that private enterprise can do it better and then thrown out all the private security people at airports and replaced them with government employees. I don’t think I would have constructed in a mad dash a whole new bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security.
Well, we could take a particular policy which we could all hopefully agree was Rightist, agree a particular per-capita statistic which represented it, and examine which industrialised democracies employed such a policy, and to what extent. Some examples might be:[ul][li]Healthcare coverage (% population not covered)[/li][li]Death penalty (number of executions)[/li][li] Military spending (% of GDP)[/li][li]Social security spending (% of GDP)[/li][li]Inequality (Richest 1% share of wealth)[/li][li]Taxation (Revenue per capita)[/li][li]Firearm access (number of firearms)[/li][li]Incarceration rate (number of prisoners)[/li][li]Legalised drugs/gambling/prostitution (instances of legal participation)[/li] Age of consent (years)[/ul]…and so on. In all of these I contend that the “average” of all the American states sits well to the political right of that of the equivalent geopolitical entities in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australasia and anywhere else which could be described as an industrialised democracy (with the exception of Israel, and even they are a “social” democracy, fiscally speaking). Can you offer an example wherein the US sits to the left of the rest of the industrialised democratic world?
Yay! I get to be the first to ask: *** CITE?***
We understand you hate Bush. Just don’t pull numbers out of your ass in GD.
I think ‘hate’ is too strong a word, although simple ‘disagreement’ doesn’t cover it either: Utter frustration is perhaps more accurate.
If there is to be an answer to this question, my guess is:
Because you think the answer is ‘Jealousy’.
Don’t know about his figures but there is no question that monkey boy is not liked.
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/lobe102903.html
also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/04/world/main604135.shtml
http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1877.cfm
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0218-06.htm
It’s not helping Blair one little bit
Is duffer indicative of Republican denial, or does he genuinely just want the stats?
Here’s some more from May.
The Pew Institute (?) does this sort of survey quite often.
Is that enough for you, duffer, old boy?
uunweisenheimer was setting up a hypothetical position based on Madelene Albright’s infamous “was it worth it” which was a response to a question whether the half a million alleged dead Iraqi children, killed as a consequence of the sanctions was worth the sacrifice of upholding the sanctions. If uunweisenheimer gets to propose hypothetical scenarios so do I, and if we for the sake of argument accept that number of deaths for a fact I do not find it unreasonable to project another half a million deaths had the sanctions been continued – which would have been the only realistic alternative to the war. I dunno, perhaps uunweisenheimer think Saddam would have converted to Hara Krishna and gone into voluntary celibacy in a monastery in India, whereafter the sanctions could have been lifted in any case – personally I doubt it. But I see uunweisenheimer didn’t answer, so I don’t see why I should answer uunweisenheimer’s.
Large parts of Islam obviously have some grave problems integrating itself in modern society, and faithful Moslems consigning themselves to separating their faith from society. But I still have hopes it’ll be possible, and I have already several times expressed my great admiration for at least one great man of Islam; the admirable Badshah Khan. And have lamented the fact that the story of such a man, a man that should be venerated by all Moslems alongside Gandhi is to be found at a site dedicated to forgotten history. Instead of Badshah Khan the so-called Arab street seem to follow despicable mass-murderers like Bin Laden, Yassin, al-Sadr etc. This is very unfortunate, but mostly for the Moslems themselves – and nobody bears responsibility but themselves. Personally I find it a thing of supreme sadness that more than 70 years after this great man of Islam started his work; for many it still comes as a surprise to hear of Muslims that subscribe to a creed of non-violence – even one inspired by the concept of Jihad (and that his story should be found on a site dedicated to forgotten history). Still nobody can resurrect his spirit but the Muslims themselves.
“There is no- thing surprising in a Muslim or a Pathan like me subscribing to the creed of non-violence." He was an ally of Gandhi and once persuaded 100,000 of his countrymen to lay down their arms and vow to fight nonviolently. His profound belief in non-violence came from the depths of his experience and his belief that these principles lay at the heart of Islam.
Khan and Gandhi worked hand in hand using the tactic of non- violence to free their land from British oppression. Khan opened schools and brought women out of their homes to become a part of society. For over two decades Khan and his followers dominated the Northwest Frontier without resorting to violence as a means for independence.“
http://taint.org/2001/12/12/003505a_mail.html
http://www.peacehost.net/PacifistNation/khan.htm
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos...3134898-2405219
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1888314001/104-9743237-2514314?v=glance&st=*
A culture is not a people wherefore the mark “genocide“ is misattributed. Yes I believe the Taliban, Wahabbism and other forms of Islamism are comparable to Nazism and should be eradicated – undoubtedly many people would die in such a confrontation, but that would be, to paraphrase another great man (joke!), collateral damage. Naturally I do not believe all Afghans or Saudies – or 1945 Germans, should be killed.
Sure, I could give it a shot. First off, Afghanistan came fairly close on the heels of 9/11. Also, it was pretty clear that the Taliban were in bed with AQ and that Afghanistan was a pretty clear threat, not just to the US. (a more interesting question would be, as it was a slam dunk case, why did ANYONE protest, let alone the 1000’s that did?) In addition, as one anti-war person related to me put it (my sister btw), the Taliban were pretty monsterous on the human rights issues that are near and dear (such as womens rights)…i.e. they generated very little sympathy with many of the anti-war crowd who had a clue. So, there were a series of factors. The biggest factor IMO was that it happened too fast and was pretty much over too fast for the anti-war crowd to really get organized.
Iraq in contrast happened after Afghanistan (resentment builds…now its TWO wars!!!). It was a long drawn out process with a lot of back and forth between the US and the UN, with the US trying (unsuccessfully) to rally support for more firm measure/invasion. As all this took time, it gave plenty of time for the anti-war crowd to get organized. In addition the 9/11 sympathy had pretty well run its course by then in Europe (hell, by this time I remember seeing stuff in Germany about how the US and Bush were really responsible, and we were simply trying to pin it on AQ to get our war for oil, blah blah blah). Also, unlike Afghanistan there was a deliberate countdown and build up to the invasion, so it was pretty clear what was going on.
Could I be completely wrong? Sure, anything is possible. I don’t believe I am, though I conceed I could be partially wrong or wrong to a degree. We are talking about painting with a fairly broad brush (on my part) here, trying to pigeon hole a wide range of people with various differing reasons for their anti-war stances (everything from religiously motivated, to peace-niks, to people who genuinely hate the US and are against anything it does, no matter what, to people who are nervous about the US’s more active and unilateral role in the world, etc etc…pretty wide range). Whats a more interesting question than am I completely wrong is, am I completely or partially RIGHT, because you know “It’s not very helpful to have that mischaracterisation in your head, since it distorts your comprehension of those whose position you oppose.” 
-XT
I suggest that, if the ‘majority’ of the ‘anti-war crowd’ is ‘opposed to any war for any circumstance’, they’d have been there against Afghanistan. All you need is a date, time, and meeting place. (My decision to march against Iraq was made the day before. My logistical organisation involved going to the city center.) That they weren’t, to a factor of perhaps 100:1 vs. Iraq, makes me think that your assertion about the ‘majority’ is wrong.
Furthermore, according to you, ‘the Taliban… generated very little sympathy with many of the anti-war crowd who had a clue’ - in other words, the people you’re characterizing as being ‘opposed to any war for any circumstance’ were not opposed to that war due to ‘any’ circumstance - they weren’t opposed to it due to ‘human rights issues that are near and dear’. Bit of a contradiction in your argument there.
I would say you’re right in so much as there is a small segment of the anti-war crowd that is ‘opposed to any war for any circumstance’. But nowhere near ‘the majority’. Unless you’re defining the ‘anti-war crowd’ according to criteria with which I’m not familiar.
I think you are seriously underestimating what it takes to organize a massive anti-war rally the likes of which were seen throughout Europe and in various other places throughout the world. Perhaps YOUR logistics were such that you decided to protest the day before, but you weren’t exactly organizing thing thing were you jjimm? You just showed up on a whim, having decided the day before.
Not at all. I didn’t say that the anti-war crowd was in FAVOR of the war in Afghanistan…in fact they weren’t. The core group of anti-war protesters is pretty much opposed to war for any reason, and I stand by that . However, as things happened so fast, and as the Taliban didn’t really generate a lot of sympathy, those huge crowds that characterized the Iraq anti-war protests just didn’t materialize. Many of the core group themselves didn’t get organized against the war, despite the fact they are opposed to wars of any kind, because of the Talibans record…and the fact that it happened so fast, and on the heels of 9/11.
As I said, there were a lot of factors for both, but the speed with which it all came down was the primary one. The anti-war crowd simply didn’t have sufficient time (nor did they have the public on board at that time) to generate more than a few measly thousand protestors.
Unless its your contention that the anti-war crowd DID sympathize with Saddam and his merry men?? Somehow I don’t think so. So, that wasn’t the PRIMARY factor for low protestor numbers in Afghanistan and high ones in Iraq. I listed it as ONE of the factors jjimm.
Its pretty obvious I am, and I see where the confusion is now…when I’m talking about the anti-war crowd, thats different that the anti-IRAQI-war protesters. THose are two different animals. There is the anti-war crowd…who are pretty much opposed to any war for any reason. They form the core group and are the organizers…the movers and shakers at various anti-war rally’s for everything from Bosnia to the first Gulf War to the latest. ‘The majority’ of them (hell, all of them really) ARE ‘opposed to any war for any circumstance’.
Then there are the OTHER people who protested the Iraqi war (who made up the vast majority of the numbers), who protested for myriad reasons of their own. SOME of them are certainly opposed to war, but most have their own reasons (some of which I listed in my other post). The Johnny-come-lately crowd basically. Such as yourself, jjimm, who decided to join in the fun the day before.
On reflection of what I actually wrote, I can defintely say…god knows what I was thinking. My only excuse is that I write much of this stuff while at work, where I’m constantly being distracted by…well, work.
Basically this was poorly worded on my part, especially the first sentence which doesn’t go with the rest of the paragraph…very confusing (well, I knew what I meant, but I can see that it doesn’t make much sense otherwise) There are those who opposed the war in Iraq, and then there is the anti-war crowd…a subset of the larger group. My appologies.
This probably doesn’t clear things up a whole lot, as its difficult for me to write this stuff at work…but hopefully its a LITTLE clearer what I was trying to say.
-XT
[QUOTE=David Simmons ]
And yet people continue to claim that he is quite likeable in the flesh. That’s a trait of all con artists.QUOTE]
I have a lot of friends I like drinking with. I wouldn’t want them running the country though.
“Con artist” implies subtlety and cleverness, of which Bush has displayed neither. Clinton was a con artist. Bush is fairly obvious.
Bush really does make it hard to support him, even if you support some of his politics. As one political comentator said, “his administration always finds a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”.
Almost makes me want to become a “naive liberal douche”.