RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


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


Iraqis want us there, but ....(38 posts)

Iraqis want us there, but ....Live Steam
Jun 27, 2003 6:22 PM
this point gets lost among all the noise coming from the left.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/20/iraq/main559521.shtml
It's a pretty tall order.Spoke Wrench
Jun 28, 2003 5:17 AM
Compared to Iraq, here in the United States we are really relatively homogenious economically and ethnically yet we still find things to bicker over among ourselves. We have a system that, over an extended period of time, eventually produces justice, but it's taken us over 200 years to get to the level of justice that we enjoy today.

They don't have any of that in Iraq. Our military are seen as outside do-gooders trying to impose our will on Iraq and the returning Iraqi exiles are suspected of just being our lackys. Iraq needs to somehow find their own version of Jefferson, Lincoln, or maybe Franklin Roosevelt. I think that it's unrealistic to think Iraq will be able to develop into the kind of democracy that most Americans envision in just a few years.

Iraq looks to me like it's going to be another decades long military committment like Korea. I don't think that our Administration is so incompetent to have not foreseen this. I don't think they were completely honest in the facts that they provided to the American people.
I think if you go back and check ...Live Steam
Jun 28, 2003 10:29 AM
no one said it would be fast and easy after the war. They did say the war would be fast and they were right and the nay Sayers were wrong on that account. Most "common" people want to live a peaceful existence no matter their religion. The problem in the middle east is that there are numerous individuals with money and power that have followers hanging on to their coattails. They see weakness in those that want peace and use their power to create instability in order to grab more power and money. These are the people that the citizens need to rebel against. They can only do it with assistance. Maybe we can help to that end.
I hope that I'm wrong, but I doubt it.Spoke Wrench
Jun 28, 2003 2:59 PM
Watergate was a third rate burglary. Clinton's dalliance with Monica was somewhat less. What rose up to bring both men down was their utter lack of truthfulness that, in both cases, took a while to unravel.

Why did we really go into Iraq in the first place? The administration has already done a bit of backsliding on that one. How much did we really know about the WMD and when did we know it? I looks to me like they were far less than completely honest on this one too. The cynics are already digging into the oil money connections. If (when) they find another "Deep Throat" or someone like the woman who spilled the beans about Monica's dress (don't remember her name), it'll be all over for George W.

Honestly, I hope that I'm wrong because I've grown very tired of the unending partisan fighting that has become American poitics. While they are busy dragging one another down, the Nation isn't being built up. There have always been disagreements, but I'm old enough to remember that it hasn't always been this way.
I hope that I'm wrong, but I doubt it.Jon Billheimer
Jun 29, 2003 6:34 AM
Spoke, your point is exceedingly well taken. Politics by its nature is adversarial and in some countries is so bad that effective governance simply doesn't exist. I remember seeing newsclips of fist fights in the Taiwan legislature, for instance. In Canada we effectively have one party rule by the Liberals, so things do get done---whether you like it or not! But in the U.S. partisanship seems to be getting more destructive with the passing of every decade and presidential politics in particular really--to an outsider--appears to be becoming more and more corrupt. As the office of the president becomes more powerful in many ways it seems to become more demeaned by dishonesty, infighting, hidden agendas and deals.
news flash: Dewey defeats Truman!dr hoo
Jun 28, 2003 5:57 AM
How was that poll done? It shows over 60% support for the US troops now (leaving after things are stabilized), but is that a reliable and valid result?

I would bet dollars to donuts that it was a telephone survey. Cheapest and fastest method, and the method that people are used to using. Telephone surveys only reach people with telephones... missing the lower classes. That is why the polls predicted Dewey to win... they missed all the poor people without phones. How many people don't have phones in Iraq? How many of the people out shooting at troops are poor?

Now, if you want to say that around 60% of the middle and upper classes of Iraq support us presence NOW, I'll accept that as more or less accurate. Although there are plenty of reasons why even they might not give honest answers to those who rule them with force.

Suppose it was a mail survey. Do you think people will honestly answer that and send it back? Or send it back at all? Is there bias in who returns the survey and who does not? There is in the USA. As is there a bias in who screens their phone calls for telemarketers.

There are issues with doing this type of survey that throw ANY result in doubt. Heck, there are lots of bad surveys in the usa, and we have very good methodologies developed. If you are putting faith in the results of THIS survey, you need to be a more critical consumer of statistics.
Interesting.Jon Billheimer
Jun 28, 2003 6:49 AM
I'll bet that Iraqi opinion is going to depend heavily upon location and tribal/religious affiliation. It would be interesting to know the scope and demographics of the polled samples.

Spoke makes a good point about the lack of homogeneity in a country such as Iraq. One other thing, from everything I read the overwhelming desire in Iraq is for a return to law and order and some semblance of civil stability. If the Americans can bring that--which so far they haven't--then so much the better.
Interesting.sn69
Jun 30, 2003 8:02 AM
Some broad demographics that illustrate a critical issue:
1. Sunni minority from which the core of the Ba'athists came from. Live predominantly in the large cities; have traditionally controlled most of the country's socio-economic power-base. Territorially control few resources without the backing of SH's power-base.
2. Shi'ite majority in the south, particularly in Basrah and the Tigris/Euphrates delta. Territorially "own" the southern oil fields and were denied wealth, power and equality under Ba'ath. Conservative estimates say that SH slaughtered more than 300K of them in the past 10 years. Pocketed ties to Wahabi groups.
3. Kurdish majority in the north, including smaller pockets of Turkmen and other "stan" minorities. Territorially own the northern oil fields, and were equally denied and persecuted under SH.

See the problem? Equitable establishment and application of law and order are only a small part of the equation. The far left is correct in their assertations that oil is the issue, although it's in a far different capacity than they imagine(d). The reality that will soon plague our over-taxed "socitey building" force is that the radical redistribution of resource wealth will be a fundamental issue of contention.

I think that Biden and McCain said it best over the weekend if you caught their comments.
Interesting.Jon Billheimer
Jun 30, 2003 9:38 AM
I think nation-building in the face of these kinds of realities overtaxes the proverbial wisdom of Solomon. Which is why so many balkanized areas of the world inevitably end up with outright dictatorships or other authoritarian forms of government, or devolve into states of perpetual anarchy. The Wolfowitz/Perle prescription to export democracy for this reason is, in my opinion, quixotically ethnocentric even if it is on the face of it well-intentioned.
In a word: yup. nmsn69
Jun 30, 2003 1:50 PM
Quixotically ethnocentric? (nm)Spoke Wrench
Jul 1, 2003 8:30 AM
Wow ...sacheson
Jun 28, 2003 8:56 AM
... twarted again. Does it burn yet, Steam?

I now pose the question, is this an issue of Right v. Left, or is it turning into a debate between Far Right and Everyone Else?

I see an increasing number of moderate Republicans questioning the actions in Iraq, and the GW admnistration as a whole.
Moderate Republicans?53T
Jun 30, 2003 5:45 AM
Name one. Senator Chafee of RI? John McCain? These guys are liberals and do not have a Republican bone in thier bodies.
it's funny ...sacheson
Jun 30, 2003 9:03 PM
... how you guys reinforce my points by trying to argue against them.

It's that [bi-]partisan "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude, isn't it?

But my point was about people outside of Washington ... example:
http://threehegemons.tripod.com/threehegemonsblog/id144.html
Don't get the joke.53T
Jul 1, 2003 7:57 AM
If your not with us, you are against us, or you just don't matter, I guess. Where are you coming from on this point?

I don't sell shoes in Scottsdale, but mark me down as supporting Bush and the war in Iraq. I wonder why that reported never called me? Perhaps majorities are boring.

A war is a war, brutal reality. The net outcome is that the US is better off without Sadam in power. The discussion of WMD, and what did the administration know about their presence or absence is politics. The sole purpose of which is to unseat the President. I am disappointed that Bush caved in to the UN and the news media and claimed there was evidence of WMD. He should have just held his ground and said "we want Sadam out now". Now that it's done, it's done.

Will I support Kerry for President because GWB might have lied to "the American people" of course not. I knew the script, most Americans did, Republican or Democrat. Giving the Dems some ammo for the next election is a small price to pay to take steps toward keeping NYC from being covered in concrete dust again. Afganistan, Iraq, Korea, lieing to Tom Brokaw and Kofi Annan, whatever it takes.
you're the jokeMJ
Jul 1, 2003 8:12 AM
how exactly is the US better without SH in power?

if SH didn't have WMD's how's NYC gonna be covered in concrete again?

why are you linking 9/11 with SH?

what could possibly be more important than the accountability of a government concerning grounds for going to war?

they didn't have to call you there's enough majority light weights already at Fox
you're the joke ?53T
Jul 1, 2003 9:37 AM
You might have a valid argument, but if you did you certainly wouldn't preface it with "You're the joke".

Your questions are very familiar to me. I've heard them over and over on the other three networks.

How is the US better without SH in power?
This is a softball. Until last month SH commanded the world's third largest army (maybe fourth largest). He has expressed utter contempt for the US and the UN, Israel, his neighbors and his subjects (Kurds and Shiites). He has a history of invading sovereign countries. In a post 9/11 world (see the connection?) that is an unacceptable combination of traits. That's the difference between now and then. Then we would have quietly tolerated this bum until he dropped a scud into downtown Tel Aviv. Now we act proactively and preemptively. This reality is lost on many Americans, but not too many.

If SH didn't have WMD how's NYC...
WMD'd don't matter. How did ObL take down the towers? Box cutters. If SH has a box cutter, he is a threat, not due to the box cutter alone, but in conjunction with the traits enumerated above. Why do you link WMD with 9/11?

Why are you linking 9/11 with SH?
9/11 really happened. Did your side see the news that day? SH had nothing to do with it (probably). However, 9/11 changed the US policy, and changed it for the better. SH knew this. Homanie knows this, Prince Abdullah knows this, Gen. Musharaf knows this. You should know this as well. The US will no longer tolerate the existence of well armed belligerents with a history of aggressive behavior. If a dog bites a kid, they kill the dog the next day. This is the new US defense policy. Kids still get bit, but never twice by the same dog. The only difference is that with people there is a deterrent effect to retribution that doesn't work with dogs.

What could possibly be more important that the accountability of a government...
343 FDNY, 23 NYPD, thousands of dead fathers, mothers and children in NYC alone. That's more important than the accountability of the US government to a bunch of Canadian news anchors. Objectivity is often the first casualty of war, and we all struggle to keep true to the principles that are important to us while doing what we must to protect our people. In a perfect world, we would not have had to play the WMD card, and until we stop playing games like "UN resolution" the world will be far from perfect.

Majority light weights?
One of the best indicators of the value of a country is the ability of the inhabitants to leave whenever they want. The US is the easiest nation to leave. The way I see it, you have to get your point of view to be the majority, or quit your griping. Why don't you run for office?
but bush's policyrufus
Jul 1, 2003 12:20 PM
is not to kill the dog after he bites a kid, but to kill any and all dogs simply because they look mean, or are barking.

saddam doesn't have a history of invading sovereign countries, he has a history of warfare to settle old historic boundaries. using this argument, the u.s. has a history of invading sovereign countries for seizing texas and california from the mexicans.

and how does a scud hitting tel aviv affect u.s. security? saddam may have been a threat to his middle east neighbors, but unless he had a nuke pointed at new york, or waiting to go to the highest bidder, which is what bush alleged, he was no threat to the u.s.

and a mighty army it was shown saddam had.
Are you serious?53T
Jul 1, 2003 12:53 PM
"saddam doesn't have a history of invading sovereign countries, he has a history of warfare to settle old historic boundaries. "

Bill Clinton didn't have sex with Monica Lewinski, either. He settled an age old curiosity about what it would be like.
kuwait was carved out of iraqrufus
Jul 1, 2003 1:07 PM
and when georgeI's ambassador to iraq met with saddam prior to gulf war one, they told saddam specifically that the united states "had no opinion about iraq's border dispute with kuwait" a statement that could easily be interpreted by saddam that if he wanted to claim kuwait back, the u.s. didn't really have a problem with him doing so.

i have no hard documentation of the causes for the iran-iraq war, but i can only assume that it has it's origin in the long history of tribal conflicts among the sects of the middle east. saddam was sunni, iran is largely shiite. the same battles that have gone on within iraq itself.
A couple of pats on the back there 53T!!!!!!!!!!Live Steam
Jul 1, 2003 12:44 PM
You are correct in that we and any other country that loves freedom, but lives with the threat of terrorism hanging over it, must take the game to the enemy. Passivity is no longer an option. 9/11 proved that we are vulnerable on many fronts and eliminating a power with weapons and lots of money is a big step toward getting a handle on the problem. Our presence in Iraq puts us squarely in the center of the hive - a good place to keep tabs on ones enemies, if you ask me.
and yet we've done almost nothingrufus
Jul 1, 2003 1:09 PM
to make our own borders safer to prevent future terrorists from getting into our country in the first place. shouldn't that be the priority?
and yet we've done almost nothingJon Billheimer
Jul 1, 2003 7:40 PM
Heaven forbid, Rufus, that any neocon would do anything that would at one and the same time make sense and accomplish a simple, defensive purpose such as safety. It's a lot more fun to go have a war, knock off some A-rabs, and buy a few million votes---all the while that we pretend to ourselves that we can actually run the world, making it a safe place for America to plunder.
wrongMJ
Jul 1, 2003 11:57 PM
yeah SH's army was a real cracker - 'well armed' and, er, "trained" and "elite" - something to be worried about undoubtedly in Beaver Cleaver land - after GW1 SH wasn't a threat to his neighbours - he certainly wasn't a threat to the US (and had never been) - he had no history of terrorism - it's a non-argument based on non-facts

you were the one that linked WMD's and SH to NY being attacked again - that's simply not based on any facts that have ever been presented by any credible report ever

the accountability to Canadian newsanchors isn't the issue - it's about acountability to US citizens and to the world for the future in the face of genuine threats - that you would wrap yourself in the dead of 9/11 to justify Iraq is perverse and a disservice to their memory and what is right by their deaths

after 9/11 it seems tgo me that Saudia Arabia constitutes more of a threat than Iraq ever did - are they next

you can't just make stuff up to justify what you wanna do whatever has happened - particularly when there was never a link between SH and 9/11 - with your approach the US could invade Mexcio tomorrow because GW concludes there's WMD's there

4000 people in the US who were attaked by OBL does not justify invading an Iraq without WMD's - that just does not follow

objectivity isn't a casualty of war to anyone who can read and put facts together (in the meantime you keep tuning in to Fox)

you, GW and the US appear to have as much comtempt for the UN as SH did - you can't have it both ways

run for office? - the point is that your point of view is pretty well represented already in the face of the dominant conservative unquestioning US media so you shouldn't be upset about not being asked for your opinion

deliberate misinformation and manipulation of recent events does not make an argument - the logical conclusion of your point of view is a far less safe world for the US and allies
You're right53T
Jul 2, 2003 6:16 AM
You're right that I have contempt for the UN, but I can have it both ways. International security is not about moral superiority, it's about power. The only people that our government has to answer to is a majority of US citizens. We didn't invade Iraq because it was the right thing to do, we did it because we thought it would make life better for us. You disagree that it would, but only time will tell.

If you think it would take a finding of WMD for us to invade Mexico, you misunderstand my position. No such finding would be required. As long as we thought that the US security picture would be brighter due to a regime change in Mexico (unlikely since Mr. Fox is nothing like SH), then we would go on in.

I never said that SH had a history of terrorism, although now that you mention it, does gassing Kurd civilians count? How about executing your brother-in-law during a conference? Your conclusion that he was no threat to the US cannot be supported. This is important: In post 9/11 America you don't have to hit us first to be considered a threat. If you are well funded, armed, and biligerent that is enough. I know it sounds coarse, by hegemony is not always pretty.

I don't watch FOX, I get my news from NPR, so I can keep an eye on what you libs are up to.

The only way to settle this is to have an election. I'll see you at the poles!
noMJ
Jul 2, 2003 7:54 AM
the thing that bugs me is that the grounds for invasion were based on SH having WMD's - apparently a lie - WMD's are the only realistic way that SH could ever have been considered a threat to the US

you should read Plato and then we can have a decent might makes right discussion (I think you'll find that you are incorrect) - anyways there's lots of belligerent types out there with weapons (especially if you consider a box cutter a weapon) - you can't invade everyone - the 'policy' you and GW are espousing is dommed for failure - N Korea has nukes, a huge army and are very belligerent - any invasion plans there?

no gassing your own citizens doesn't count as terrorism, nor does shooting your brother in law - neither one of these points has any bearing on SH's threat to the US - please explain how these points (or any others) indicate SH was a legitimate threat to the US

SH actions were certainly not nice - the Iraqi people are certainly better off without SH - but US citizens are not better off at having entered into a war based on lies, manipulation and deliberate misinformation

I don't think that the US government's lies about grounds for entering the war is a liberal vs. conservative thing - why do you?

as far as hegemony goes it's a shame that the famously poorly read president has never looked at Machiavelli - this is no way to insure safety or security for a number of self-evident reasons

you should tune in to Fox to see that you and the rest of the lightweight kneejerk neocon majority are well represented by the unquestioning US media
Now that's funny!53T
Jul 2, 2003 1:12 PM
I've read Plato, and of course might does not make right. Perhaps you should read Kenneth Waltz and we can discuss why it's not important to be right in matters of international relations and national security.

If we were to disband our armed forces this afternoon (and disarm the citizens while we're at it) would that make it right for Korea to send merchant ships with missles launchers welded on to Seattle to take over the West Coast? Of course not. Would they do it? You bet they would, unless China beat them to it.

Might does not make right. Might does determine who's way of life gets to be used as the model in a world wide system that increasingly will not tolerate incompatible ways of life. ObL's henchmen would be of no consequence to us if they had no way of getting here. But times have changed and anyone can go anywhere now.

Again: it's not about being right. It's about still being here when the fighting is over.

You ask an very interesting question about the Government lieing being a liberal v. conservative thing. This is how I see it: Every time an adminstration official, like Powell, was forced to stand up and insist that there might very well be WMD in Iraq therefore we should invade, I truly felt they were not talking to me. I was already yelling at them to invade Iraq. WHy would they stop and explain this crap about WMD to me? They were explaining it to the UN (who's members already had thier individual minds made up) and the American left. Curiously, the left was powerless to stop an invasion decision. The only redress would come at the next national election if WMD were not found. It looks like we are not going to find any great quantity of WMD, so lets have an election.

I am disapointed that when I suggest that future of global relations will be characterized by US hegemony (a straight line for a liberal like yourself, and an audacious concept in any case) you respond by calling the President poorly read.

Say what you want about the majority, but I would disagree with any characterization of my position as knee-jerk or lightweight. These are serious issues and I have put in the hours (decades) to understand them and form opinions and positions based on historical truths and a clear vision for the future. The fact that you have a different vision, or interpret history differently is no reason to be rude.
total BSMJ
Jul 3, 2003 12:11 AM
what don't you understand about this? - SH was not a threat to the US. not one credible report has ever made that conclusion. if SH was a legitimate threat then some of your points wouild carry a bit of weight but he wasn't and they don't

perversely, following the Iraqi invasion, countries that are legitimate threats now and in the future (North Korea to name but one) to the US and others will not be dealt with in the same way - the US has blown it's wad - I don't see a massive buildup in Korea or anywhere else - you shouting at the TV for the US to invade the Congo to bring freedom to those folks (4m down after a nasty prolonged multicountry genocidal conflict)? you think the US public is gonna support another premptory invasion on the weight of facts presented re Iraq?

the world is now a more dangerous place following a war based on lies against someone who was not a legitimate threat - not even the rabid neocon portions of the American public will support an invasion without concrete proof (which isn't always possible to provide) - that will be the redress - when there is a legitimate threat but the boy has cried wolf one too many times

speaking of legitimate threats - what's happened to OBL and his Al Qaeda henchmen? problem sorted out now?

if you look at Israel you can see that dealing with the 'incompatible' is never successful when based on military action - it's based on compromise and agreement - we can't exterminate all our enemies nor can we realistically dominate them - the Iraqi people are better off today without SH - and they're already chafing under US control with pockets of serious resistance - if the entire population were openly hostile the problem would obviously be exponentially worse

in a world full of international leaders who are intellectual heavyweights - GW admits he never reads books - he is the common guy, the average man - and he hams it up - be dissappointed in GW not me telling you what he has already told everyone (and is readily apparent)

it is lightweight and it is knee jerk to justify a war based on lies and misinformation against a non-threat - your arguments have weight in the theoretical sense but are being used to cloud the factual issue at hand - US military disbanding and North Korea invading the west coast notwithstanding - you're talking abouit serious issues but they have no bearing on what teh situation is at the moment - it's not a different vision or history it's about what the truth is and what lies have been told and what people like you believe re the accountability of the US government when entering into an ill considered adventure that has resulted in a far less safe world for the US and her allies - if you think it's rude that I disagree then maybe you should try examining the situation at hand - answering questions that haven't been posed is no way to move forward

what's the name of the Waltz book?
You don't have a clue do you?Live Steam
Jul 3, 2003 6:46 AM
"speaking of legitimate threats - what's happened to OBL and his Al Qaeda henchmen? problem sorted out now?"

Since placing ourselves right in the middle of the problem (Iraq) the US has apprehended many more Al Queda operatives and leaders. It also gives us a better vantage point from which to monitor that activities of all Middle Eastern terrorist groups.

The world if a far less dangerous place without Saddam and his power base. If he is alive he is underground and running. He can no longer operate with impunity. He cannot funnel money, intelligence and weapons to terrorists that have been plaguing Israel and the US - and if you don't believe he was doing this you have no credibility yourself. Americans will not have any problem if we need to go into another country to ferret out dangers to US interests. I certainly don't.

Call me what you like - typical of the left when they cannot support their argument or are in no position to control the situation. You sound like Janine Garofolo whining the way you are. And your obvious contempt for GW clouds your rational. The WMD was answered by the left in the quotes I listed. If they want to tell us all what they based those conclusions on, there are plenty of us willing to listen. Clinton's defense secretary said without equivocation, in 2003, that WMD exited in Iraq. Did he get fooled by this administration too? We will find out in the next election if your position represents the majority. I doubt it does. Both the Senate and House will be even more Republican in 2004. Your thoughtless and inaccurate assertion that just 4000 lives were effected by the events of 9/11 shows your irreverence for the enormity of the event. Tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives were effected. See ya' sonny!
Heh heh hehRidearound
Jul 3, 2003 6:59 AM
Brilliant! Funniest rubbish I read to ages - and they say that Americans don't do irony!
patehtic at least 53 can string an argument togetherMJ
Jul 3, 2003 7:25 AM
how many Al Qaeda people were found in Iraq? - not one - if you disagree please show the source

what terrorists, weapons and money did SH funnel against the US? - none/not one - if you disagree please provide evidence

SH was not a threat to the US - as I keep repeating - not one credible report has ever reached that conclusion - hence the creation of the WMD lie

military action is not a long term solution - you can't subjugate enemies and threats through eternal warfare - there's lots of examples around if you care to look

in my previous posts I was addressing 53 not you - but for the record you're a total idiot

the difference between Clinton and GW is that Clinton didn't invade on the basis of WMD's

my reference to 4000 was body count only - I didn't realise we were looking at such huge tangentially related numbers which I can only assume must mean the innocent civilians in Afghanistan and GITMO - of course others were affected - believe it nor not I was too - however to justify invading Iraq with 9/11 is perverse to those effected and can only be considered the height of poor judgment not to mention the epitome of ignorance

Steam your posts are an embarassment to everyone on the far right - do them a favour and leave it to others to do your arguing cause you're terribe at it
That's just plain insultingRidearound
Jul 3, 2003 7:28 AM
to people who are terrible at arguing - you should be ashamed...
Your're point is clear53T
Jul 3, 2003 10:29 AM
If I way summarize: Iraq was no treat, and there were no WMD's.

I might agree that there were no WMD's, but I can't accept that SH was not a threat to the US. You say there has never been a credible report, but ther was never a credible report showing how Al Queda operatives could fly a plane into a building either. The lesson we should learn is that our intel is not good enough to identify real immenent threats. So, we go after longer term threats. These are identified as I have previously explained: anti-American rhetoric, good funding source, access to weapons (conventional and/or WMD). That's all it takes. Iraq qualifies and so do a few others if they don't get their house in order.

There are many examples of keeping enemies in order by military force, if our current war on terrorism is effective in promoting security for as long as the Roman empire kept a lid on Europe, I'll be satisfied.

On today's NPR news a liberal US senator was returning from Iraq or thereabouts and was quoted as saying things are progressing but THERE WERE NO WMD's! This seems to be the rallying cry for the left. They complain that the President is evil to have misled the American people ABOUT THE REASON FOR WAR. They always shout the last part, since that's what makes Bush's lies different from Clinton's lies.

For me and my majority friends, WMD's don't matter, Bush's reasons for invasion don't matter. We forgive him and that's all it will take. Perhaps he will pay in the next life, but certainly not in the next election cycle.
by your "criteria"MJ
Jul 4, 2003 5:11 AM
almost any country in the world could qualify as a target for a preemptory invasion - including most of America's allies - it's a terrible argument and you know it

anyways - I can think of a huge number of countries who should have qualified before Iraq - China, North Korea, Libya, most of the middle east, Iran - looking at this from many angle your criteria is total crap

I note that despite still insisting SH was a threat - you don't have a scrap of proof or argument from anyone anywhere - not the CIA, NSA or even a rabid neocon journal - I guess you have to concede this point - your longer term threat point is novel and is certailny not the one that the government seems to be publicly espousing - do you have insider info.?

it's incredible that you would use the 9/11 lack of report to justify Iraq - again employing that sort of imagery does a disservice to what actually happened - it clouds the issue and is a rather perverse memorial to the dead

the reason it's being shouted is because lies which result in a war are, wait for it, somehow worse than lies about a blowjob - it's pretty simple - also shouted because no one seems to be holding Bush accountable for the lie and resulting war (maybe they wil as the US body counts creep higher) - not the media and not the public - Iraq looks more and more like a situation which is going to involve considerable American casualties (one more dead today 10 wounded) and a difficult extrication - GW's helpful "bring it on" comments aside - the President is evil for putting forth such lies and leading the country to war with them - without the lie the US public would never have supported the increasingly Vietnamesque Iraqi adventure

your grasp of history is lacking but I understand the US education system is considered to be somewhat deficient - the Romans didn't keep a lid on Europe through extermination, subjugation and overwhelming force (cause it's not effective and never has been anyweher for a long term solution) which seems to be preferred US model - Machiavelli would be a good read here - but alas we know GW famously doesn't read so I guess we're screwed

why aren't GW's lies something that concern you? - if he lies about war, the gravest decision a leader can make - what else will he lie about? how can you trust GW on anything if he'll bring the country to war on the basis of a lie? why don't his reasons for invasion matter? help me understand that point of view

BTW - you control the executive for now - but you never had the majority - however the vote was counted

thanks for the book title - I do read
Why are you so rude?53T
Jul 7, 2003 5:43 AM
Why do you feel you have to argue international relations by insulting the US education system, insuling my grasp of history, accusing me of disrespecting 9/11 victims/survivors, etc. I don't recall insulting you, but if I did, I appologize.

My criteria would certainly not include very many of America's allies. How did you reach that conclusion? Please give an example. For reference, here are the criteria: Public threats to do harm to US intrests; good source of funding; access to weapons from boxcutters to WMD.
Not even France would qualify under these criteria. N. Korea is close, but I'm not sure they meet the public threat standard yet. I stand by my criteria, and it apears that the Bush and Blair adminstrations are applying it as well.

What is you point in saying that other countries should have been first (other than my criteria is "crap")? There is no shortage of bad actors on the world stage, I don't see why Iraq is not a good starting place, all economic, strategic and political issues considered.

Your point about Bush requiring lies to garner the support of the American people is suspect. As I mentioned before, the American left was powerless to influence US policy in Iraq. The left controls no branch of government, and therefore has no foothold to influence policy. There is no procedure where the President must poll the public before launching an invasion. Again, the only reasonable recourse for the left is at the next election. At that time it may be clear that there are no WMD, and that Bush and Co. lied about it all along. If the presidential or congressional elections go substantially to the left, you will have made your point. If the right retains power or gains seats, I was right. The public doesn't care about WMD. Either way Bush should not have lied, but that doesn't make a bit of difference in the balance of power domestically or internationally. And, thanks to Bill C., the dems will be a little embarrased to bring up lieing per se as a "bad thing" during a presidential election.

My grasp of history is just fine. (my grasp of the future is far better than yours!) Your argument that "the Romans didn't keep a lid on Europe through extermination, subjugation and overwhelming force" is not something I'm prepared to accept. history tells us that the Romans did employ more diplomatic tactics, from time to time, but it is folly to suggets that the Romans advanced military technology and organization from sticks and stones to near 19th C. levels just for sport. Many populations and individuals were exterminated, enslaved and subjugated in the name of imperialism. The record is very clear.

My point, vis a vis GWB and lieing about WMD, is very simple and based in politics. GWB is my guy. I don't want the other guy, be it Dashel, Gore, Hillary, Chucky Shumer, Barbara Boxer, or whatever dem the cat drags in come November. He's goiing to have to do something a lot worse than claim SH has WMD to get me to support a primary challenge. SH is not one of my favorites, never was. Just like you would love to see GWB gone, even if it means citing US death tolls in Iraq in the distastful manner that you use in your latest post, I want to keep him in. I think we would all be better off.
Why are you so rude?Ridearound
Jul 7, 2003 6:12 AM
"GWB is my guy. I don't want the other guy, be it Dashel, Gore, Hillary, Chucky Shumer, Barbara Boxer, or whatever dem the cat drags in come November. He's goiing to have to do something a lot worse than claim SH has WMD to get me to support a primary challenge"

Jeesus man, have some self-respect for the sake of our children. This "lesser of 2 evils" cr@p is not gonna make the world a better place.

For the love of man, let's at least TRY to set a higher standard...
Why are you so rude?MJ
Jul 7, 2003 6:49 AM
if you think the Roman empire rules the way you imply and that America's appraoch is in any way parallel youi are mistaken - it is not historically accurate

you, and every other person, who justifies Iraq and the excesses of the 'war on terrorism' with any reference to 9/11 does disrespect what happened and the memory of those affected - dead and otherwise - it is perverse and you should be ashamed for wrapping the dead around your argument - espeically when they are unrelated

most of Europe is anti-US on at least some points - to take but two reference the ICC or Kyoto - they all have funding and weapons too - the prospect of France attacking the US is about as high as SH attacking the US

in any event - you're talking about a tin-pot dictator making threats - it's like a ten year old threatening Mike Tyson

however - most of all you still keep implying (though now not explicitly stating) tat SH was somehow a threat to the US - no one believes that - not one credible report has reached that conclusion - you and any one else can say it all you like - but it doesn't make it true

the reason Iraq should not have been first is because SH wasn't a threat - it's very simple - North Korea, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria all come in higher on the threat ranking of countries - but as SH was only a tin pot dictator running his inconsequential mout there's plenty of others who could also qualify for US attention too

are you finally admitting that GWB lied re WMD's?

I thank you for the brief review of the current state of left vs right in American politics but it's irrelevant to the question at hand - SH was not a threat and GW lied to go to war - should he be held accountable - thanks anyways

of course the Romans advanced warfare - but that's not how they governed on a long term basis - war was only a small part of the equation - really you should know that if you claim to have such an understanding of history

distasteful - look no further than your higher office - I'm not the one saying bring 'em on like it's the WWF - you can't ignore the body count and as it climbs the grounds for questioning GWB will only grow

in any event - it appears you condone and admit GWB's lies - I still don't understand how you don't think it's important for your guy to be held accountable for lies about grounds for war - certainly there's no graver offence the executive could commit
Start with "Man, the State and War" (nm)53T
Jul 3, 2003 10:13 AM