If that had been the point made, I wouldn’t have said boo, I happen to agree with it. I also happen to realize that it’s too early to determine what exactly the outcome of this war will be. It’s possible that the U.S and U.K will manage to spearhead the effort that creates a more moderate government in Iraq and that people from that area of the world question the prophaganda they’ve been taught about America attempting to crush Islam. Nobody knows right now, and to scream “We’re creating thousands of new terrorists” is unsupported speculation and sensationalism.
Weirddave: “Over 40 countries support the war…”
Yeah we’ve heard the government’s spin too. It’s pretty pathetic. Only the UK is supporting the war in the credible, participatory way that dozens did during the Gulf War. Some of the “40 countries” don’t even want to give their names in public! Of the those who have, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Eritrea and several other eminently forgettable places are included. IIRC not one Arab country is included.
The “coalition of the willing” is PR stunt, precisely contrived so that the word “unilateral” can be questioned. Let’s rephrase though to adjust for such hair-splitting quibbles. The Bush administration has decided to make the US into–in effect–the sole arbiter of international law in instances where it can’t persuade its major allies to sign on for its aggressive escapdes. That’s a pretty dangerous precedent in my view, and the majority of the world agrees. Nor is there any shortage of dissent within these United States, where Americans understably support their troops, and even rally around their president in time of war but believe, by and large, that his diplomacy skills stink.
When you add that to the fact that the Bush administration has persistently misinformed Americans–leading them to believe that Saddam/Iraq was responsible for 9/11–and that there has been exceedingly little discussion of the downside of war on these terms in the mass media, I’d say that Bush just about got away with it. It remains to be seen though whether Americans will continue to support him when the major battles are over, the messy and expensive occupation begins, and, among other things, Americans turn their sights partially back on domestic concerns–which, but for the distraction of a war, would be hair-raising.
No, that’s just the spin coming from Democrats gearing up for elections. Trust me not everyone believes it. People have noticed the French duplicity in the UN regarding the Iraq issue (did anyone notice the CESM jokes?) and the attempt to make it’s own position the de facto ‘world opinion’. 40 countries have expressed or pledged support and/or agree with what we are doing, and don’t forget Australian and Polish troops. That’s plenty.
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t know that your aproval was needed for the manner in which a country conducts it’s foreign policy. I’ll be sure to get a memo out to all of the nations of the world that you don’t aprove, I’m sure you’ll be inundated with requests for guidance.
As to your Bush bashing… bash away, I’ve never been a supported of Bush, as a point of fact I think he’s dumber than styrofoam. That dosen’t change the fact that attacking SH is the right thing to do. I agree Bush couldn’t negotiate a blow job in Patterson Park with a hundred dollar bill in each hand. That dosen’t mean that I’m going to lap up the prophaganda from France, Germany, Russia and others who are trying to hold the moral high ground when thes exact same countries are the ones that have the most to gain financially by SH remaining in power and the most to lose if a moderate govt. comes to power in Iraq. Bush, for all his earnest naievity and right wing pork barrel favoritism, does truly believe that the average Iraqi will be better off after the war and, IMHO, this actually makes a difference to him. Weather or not he can pull it off is another question.
God, I wish I would have said this!!!
So I’ll say it again:
Originally posted by FranticMad
**Classic idiocy.
The absence of WMD is not the only reason to oppose the war.
The presence of WMD is not the only reason to support the war.
The OP reduces the arguments on both sides down to a single issue. The simple-mindedness of the OP is breath-taking. It’s all attitude, with a distinct lack of intelligence. Polarized whining like this is for the weak-minded**
What makes you think I get my “spin” from the Democrats? On the contrary, the Democrats have been incoherent on the subject of Bush’s handling in the war (partly b/c they are hamstrung by their perceived need to support it in ever way or else be called unpatriotic. I hardly even listen to the Democrats, much less look to them for edifying opinion.
I’m not sure what you have in mind by French “duplicity.” Would this be the canard that the French promised to go ahead with whatever the US wanted to do and then backed out? If so, canard indeed. Carte blanche may be a French expession, but it’s not what the French gave to the US or any other power as far as a guaranteed follow-up to 1441. The French had a reasonable compromise on the table when we rushed off to do the job with Britain–with our (IIRC) 200 Polish troops in tow. Puh-lease.
And I can’t imagine what you mean by “de facto” opinion. The world’s opinion is the world’s opinion. Do you think the French bought it with brie?
This is all such old hat, I can’t believe we’re even discussing it. Outside of a handful of governments–none of whom enjoy majority support from their own publics–and with the singular exceptions of the US and the UK themselves–the world disagrees with what Bush did. It’s a fact Tee. Just deal.
Mind you: I’m not even saying that should change your mind. I often disagree with majority opinions. But when I do I don’t waste my time trying to convince myself, or anyone else, that only “spin” or “duplicity” accounts for my holding a minority opinion.
Weirddave: I’m not Bush-bashing either. You’re entitled to your opinion that “attacking SH was the right thing to do,” but you’re fooling yourself if you think that those who disagree are just lapping up propaganda from other countries. Some of us are thinking for ourselves. Which is presumably what you think you are doing, no?
Hey, did i predict you’d dodge the challenge? yes i did! i win a cigar! Enjoy the death this war will reap in a few years, knowing the blood is on your hands as well. Don’t worry, i’m sure you can invade Iran or Syria to make up for the fact everyone hates us, because when we attack it is out of love.
Yes, heaven forbid we be consistant with law violators and instead attack the oil rich people. Haliburton got it’s unlimited contract, and more US firms are stepping in line to rape Iraq dry. And then when we got out pupet gov’t set up, we don’t have to worry about oil shortages as we invade Middle eastern countries one by one on our holy crusade. They will praise Jesus or feel our devine wrath!
The war was born out of inconsistancy in US foreign policy. Of inspectors one minute, and years of nothing the next. By saying consistancy has no place you are ignoring the seeds of the excuses the administration is giving for the war (or at least one of the reasons). Arbitrarily declaring stuff immaterial does not make it so.
Please. Bush thinks the average Haliburton executive will be better off after the war. So will a bunch of other CEO’s. they will give millions to his campaign. Then he gets reelected and invades more countries so the next Pubbie can get in after him.
I wasn’t.
No, it’s not. I’m making an argument about the inherent limitations on how many things we can tackle simultaneously, just like the cop in my analogy. One hopes the cop will stop the knifing, and hope he’s able to track down the B&E guy later, rather than the other way around.
Same thing in international affairs.
With my ‘that’, it most certainly does. Time appears to be of the essence with North Korea; by the time we’re extricated from Iraq, which was nowhere close to possessing nukes, NK may have a fairly impressive arsenal. Maybe Iran will have The Bomb too. Who else is a few years away from going nuclear that hasn’t yet made the news?
What’s clear is that one doesn’t need to be a first-rank world power anymore to go nuclear; relatively small, poor, and troublesome countries can get there. That’s the beat we’re not patrolling while we waste time in Iraq. And we’ll be in Iraq for awhile.
To be fair, the partisan issue doesn`t hold water with me. The same thing is happening now with GWB and the democrats. The lack of support from the other side is a tidal event.
Short answer, NO.
Unless it could be demonstrated that Cuba, or any other nation, is or will be a threat to the US or close allies in the near future.
Heh, try again.
Damn, posted too soon. Maybe those embedded reporters, or the army or whoever fuck should shut the hell up until they actually find something.
I’m getting real tired of this crying wolf shit.
Why do I feel that we will be seeing another Colin Powell UN type of presentation, trying to spin lawn fertilizer into biological weapons?
Tars, you’re an idiot, I’m done with you. Saying “you said this” and when I point out that I didn’t, responding “I knew you’d dodge the question” is assinine. Keep sniffing that glue and enjoy yourself in your happy little world far, far away from reality.
RTF:
Korea already has nukes and rockets that can deliver them to Tokyo, Seoul and a host of other targets. Are you suggesting that in order to be “consistant” in our foreign policy we should invade them? Are you claiming that Kim, no matter how much of a whacko he is, is actively torturing and killing as many citizens as SH has been? Are you claiming, conversely, that we should leave SH alone because Korea has nukes? Are you really so naieve that you don’t recognize that we have to deal with different countries differently with full consideration of their respective threats, military abilities and individual situations?
Keep writing the funny lies. Maybe one day someone will read what you vomit and give a damn.
It’s an inconsistant world.
As far as the Iraq, NK thing, the Iraq problem is easier to tackle at this time. Whats wrong with dealing with them first?
Would you rather we premptively strick NK first?
Apples and oranges I say.
Speaking for myself, I’d rather we pre-emptively “strick” no one.
I knew that would be the first reponse. Thanks for pointing out my typo.
Anything constructive to add?
Yes, see above. As to your typos, do your own copy-editing ;).
A simple “no” would have been fine.
I had a reply to this that got lost when I posted it in one of the temporary board blips we’ve had today. Basically, I said certainly, I’m always happy to discuss issues with those who are knowledgeable and polite, see my previous response to Bianarydome. There has just been a lot of screaming and gnashing of teeth coupled with outright lies in this thread, those people don’t earn the same courtesies. I posted, got a “cannot find server” error and when I refreshed the thread I found that the septic tank between Tars’ ears had backed up and overflowed out of his mouth again and I got destracted and forgot to repost this. Sorry, I wasn’t ignoring you.
i thought you were taking your ball and going home. another lie i see. And you got insulting first with the “asswipe” comment, you fucking liar. go spout your revisionist history to your stuffed animals, sinc ethey will listen.