's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

Lieberman statement --(14 posts)

Lieberman statement --DougSloan
Mar 21, 2003 11:18 AM
ps: I would really like to hear the Liberal views on this. nmDougSloan
Mar 21, 2003 11:40 AM
On what?czardonic
Mar 21, 2003 12:01 PM
This sounds like sanctimonious pro-War but anti-Bush CYA from a Democratic presidential hopefull.

I suppose that the "Liberal view" might dispute some of the "facts" that he lists. At this point a few remain allegations, though not without significant basis. I personally think that Saddam's weapons programs were primarily meant to deter outside interference and boost his image as a regional bad-a$$.

The "Liberal view" would no doubt agree that the UN debacle was a failure on Bush's part rather than evidence of UN obstinence. A second resoultion could have been finessed by a more skillful diplomat. I think that the brick wall that Bush ran into was one he himself built over a long period of evident disdain for diplomacy and international law.

I suspect that the "Liberal view" may still hold that "stopping the war" is the right thing to do, which I personally disagree with. I hope that Bush can pull this war off, and he will deserve a lot of credit if he does.
Well, if you want the liberal view on war....Alpedhuez55
Mar 21, 2003 12:32 PM
Here is what Tom Daschle said in 1998:

“Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? . . . This is the key question. And the answer is, we don’t have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily.”

THat was very well put. It is too bad his beleifs change when there is a Republican in the Whitehouse.

I think they could have put the "Shock & Awe" on hold for a couple of days. Going on the ground to Baghdad without it may have been to dangerous without going after military targets though. It could be a sucker type plow. We will see how things shake out.

Mike Y.
why create an 18th resolutionNo_sprint
Mar 21, 2003 12:40 PM
when the first 17 were good enough and were not enforced by a spineless, meaningless political association? Why prolong the do nothing that has been happening for years?

Regardless of how anyone *feels*, facts are facts, time is up, no more bull allowed, this action is years overdue.

Oppressed people are being liberated, resolutions are being enforced, a pathological maniac who is a danger to all around him is being forced out. We are taking a part in good work with many many other good nations.

Many conservative and liberal minded people feel this same way, as evidenced in that release.
You're right.czardonic
Mar 21, 2003 12:50 PM
From a procedureal standpoint, I don't think that a new resolution is needed. For that matter, 1441 shouldn't have been needed. If I said otherwise in earlier posts, I official retract those ill-concieved statements. If Saddam can be taken out and Iraq liberated, it should be done. I think that is a taller order than some people are saying, but it is a worthy goal.

The only reason that I think that we needed French, German and Russian support is to remove and perception that this is an "American" crusade against Islam. It may seem like a ludicrous notion to us, but it enjoys plausibility in other parts of the world. The more this looks like a truly international action, the more smoothly it will go, especially when the smoke clears and the nation is re-built.
Maybe you have seen the lightCaptain Morgan
Mar 21, 2003 1:57 PM
Just kidding. Finally a post you and I can agree on. Have a great weekend.
someone else obviously hacked into his handle. :) nmNo_sprint
Mar 21, 2003 2:40 PM
Wowee. nmSintesi
Mar 22, 2003 4:32 AM
Wait! Wait!Sintesi
Mar 22, 2003 4:33 AM
You still think Bush is an evil, right?
Evil? No. Do I disagree with him on nearly every issue? Yes.czardonic
Mar 22, 2003 11:45 AM
I still think that his politics are bad for this country and bad for this world. He may prove to be exactly the kind of president we need to deal with someone like Saddam Hussein once and for all. But, I don't think he has the experience or flexibility to deal with the many other problems this country faces.

That being said, I'd rather he prove me wrong than prove me right.
Would it bother you if I said you're no fun anymore?Sintesi
Mar 22, 2003 11:58 AM
Just kidding.
Stay tuned. }: ] (nm)czardonic
Mar 22, 2003 12:00 PM
re: Lieberman statement --Me Dot Org
Mar 21, 2003 1:28 PM
When he said that responsibility for failure

"...will result in part from the Bush Administration's unilateralist, divisive diplomacy, which has pushed a lot of the world away from us and this just and necessary cause. Both have been an unfortunate reality these past few months, and both have helped bring us to this difficult and awkward crossroads.

I pretty much agree with him, except that I would say that the Bush pretty well made his unilateralist vision clear within the first 100 days of the Administration.

But when he says We cannot and should not allow our broader policy disagreements to become an excuse for avoiding our fundamental constitutional responsibilities to defend American security and the American people.

I agree, but my agreement is my opposition. I think this war will ultimately make the U.S. less secure. I've said that that if the war starts, I quite selfishly hope that I am wrong. I want the U.S. to be secure. Now that the war is started I want it to end quickly, with a little loss of human life as possible. I hope that our troops return home safely.

We can talk about U.N. resolutions. The U.S. doesn't talk about "UN credibility" when it comes to Israeli defiance of U.N. resolutions.

We can talk about biochem and nuclear weapons. Yes, Iraq has used them. Where was out outrage when that happened? Quite frankly, the Reagan and Bush administration did nothing. So I find all this new-found "horror" to be a little hypocritical. I would also point out that Iraq had those weapons during the Gulf war, and he did not use them.

Hussein is a thug. He understands power. I don't think he will use chemical weapons against the U.S. unless it is his last resort. And I don't think that a man who can't trust his own son-in-law would trust a Wahabi fundamentalist. Weapons are power, and Hussein does not share power.

It's all a matter of perception, and that perception is a subjective thing. One person looks at a list of pros and cons and says that the pros of war outweigh the cons. Another looks at the same thing and says the cons of war outweigh the pros.