posted
Ok, I admit Bush isn't the brightest bulb at everything, but the reason I support him on Iraq is this. He did not do it for politics, he did not do it for oil, he did not do it for his dad. He did it because it had to be done, he did what he had to do, and he is not trying to hide it, it may be unpopular but he stands by his decisions, so I respect him, and he is one of the few people in the spotlight of todays world that I can admire, not for intelligence, achievement, but for this, he knows what he has to do, and he does it, regardless of the ocnsequences, he saw an evil man, he saw evil beng done unto innocents, he knew he would get flack, possibly kill his politcal career, but he did it anyway, and I admire and respect him for that.
posted
Because there has been no saber-rattling of the sort we had leading up to the Iraq conflict. In fact, Bush has said that diplomacy will suffice with regards to N. Korea, even though Kim and his dad have been oppressing his people probably the worst out of the bunch, Saddam inclusive.
Of course you sidestep having to admit that Bush changed his rationale, after the fact. It's one thing to change your mind prior to commiting to something, it's quite another to do so afterward.
posted
Um, I don't know if you are aware of this, but 9/11 was the perfect excuse for him to do it. Not because it it had to be done. It had been the plan for quite a years before 9/11. Some of these people have been working toward this goal for over 30 years. Think what you will, but one of the first lies Bush told the American people was that he was a centerist. A uniter, not a divider. He's none of those things. He is very carefully following the neo-conservative playbook to bring American democracy to the world, by force if necessary and to keep power in the hands of the "elite."
You claim that "He saw an evil man and saw what had to be done and he did it."
1st, he didn't do it. He had our military and our allies military people do it. He had them risk their lives and continue risking their lives. Please do not give him credit for the bravery of our friends and family that are trying to spread peace into a chaotic land.
2nd, there are many other bad and evil men that President Bush has chosen to ignore. While we were hunting for Osama Bin Laden, who was behind the murder of thousands of American lives, and with the Talibal, unknown thousands of Afghani lives, espcecially their woman and children, he chose to put that hunt and that search on the back burner so we could concentrate men, resources, and political capital on Iraq.
There was President Charles Taylor who promoted war and death throughout Africa, created slave labor camps to mine other peoples diamonds, and was a greedy murderous leader of Liberia. When his own people rebelled against him President Bush refused to send troops to oust him or arrest him for his many crimes. Instead he sent in a few hundred Marines only after Charles Taylor and millions of his stolen money, were safely exiled out of the country.
While President Bush called Iran one of the axis of evil, despite the efforts of the majority of Iranian people to fight the influence of their fanatical clerical rule, he pushed for ever closer ties with China, who's leadership arrests members of a pacifist religion, because its too big.
Brutal leaders exist all over the world. President Bush chose Iraq not because Hussein was the worst. He may have chose it because we already had expensive troops in the area. He may have chose it because it was a drain on our economy and a quick war and a quick out would allow us to free ourselves from that problem. He may have chose it because his advisors, for reasons of their own, pushed him to chose it, perhaps by not showing him the cruelty and inhumanity of other dictators around the world.
President Bush ran for election saying that the US should not be the police force of the world, then he claims the reason for going to war was just that, policing the world of evil men.
No Rhaegar, I must disagree with your view on the war. It is the view that the Bush administration is pushing, this week, but it is flawed.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK the elite are the mot intelligent most powerfule and richest people in the country right? Yes, and did you knwo what aproximately 6/8ths of therichest, or most powerful, or influencial people in american are Democrats? So putting the power in the hands of the elite would be putting it in the hands of the east coast liberal snobs.
posted
He chose Iraq because he could send a message with it, they were evil, their are others who know they are, Korea, Libya, Iran etc. Iraq was strong enough to seem powerful to them, but weak enough that we would not have to send so many of our people to their deaths, with Iraq he sent a clear message to the other Saddams in this world, "This will not stand." and guess what, Korea reinitiated diplomatic talks, and Libya said, hey we want to play nice now. They are getting the point, many birds, one stone.
Rhaegar
[ February 12, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rhaegar, the elite CAN be that, but aren't necessarily that. "Elite" tends to be a small group of people with lots of power, and usually disdain for their underlings.
Sorta like the entire Straussian philosophy most of PNAC (and therefore many higher-ups in the defense department) believe in, or are sympathetic to.
That said, I don't think Bush is an idiot, and I hate it when anyone else says he is. Also, while it is admirable that he will stick to his guns even when criticized (ironically, not unlike the MA SJC justices; but I digress), in my case, it is less admirable because he remains his staunchest on issues/situations I disagree with him on.
posted
NO, they wern't pushovers, the were powerful enough to be strong, but weak enough that we wouldnt be sending our men into a nuclear blast zone, aka North Korea and a mentally disturbed man with glasses.
Rhaegar
[ February 12, 2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Rhaegar The Fool ]
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine. You believe that Bush did it because of humanitarian reasons, ignoring the earlier rationale; that's your perogative. I disagree.
Yes, you can rationalize it; many (most?) US citizens have. Maybe it's just me who has been rationalizing it. It's always been a humanitarian mission, we've always been at war with Eurasia...
Maybe I'm just one of those east coast snobs, who lack any perspective (I can't count myself as part of the 'elite' though, I fail on the affluence requirement ).
Saddam Hussein was a monster, and the world is probably better off without him. I don't think there are many people who would argue with you on that one.
But that's not what Bush was saying at the beginning. My little sister and I had this discussion way at the beginning, during the last SoU, when Bush was still talking about going to war over WMDs.
I have no love for Saddam Hussein. But I hate being lied to. In a democracy, honesty is the virtue that stands high above the rest. I want my government and my president to tell me why and how they're doing what their doing, and I want them to be honest throughout the entire process. Right now, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned with the condition and future of U.S. democracy than I am for the people of Iraq. Maybe that's selfish, but I think we should be supporting our values at home before we go trying to spread them abroad.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
What do you mean? We've always been at war with Eastasia... ---
Snarky is a bit over-used here at Hatrack, though it is a good word. I propose we metrosexualize it and make it "snarkalicious"? ---
Yes, it's true, but if you recall, that's not why we were originally going into Iraq. It was WMDs and terrorism. Saddam was a horrible ruler, by just about any standard; but he isn't the only one, and if we are going to change our foreign policy, I would like it clearly outlined. I for one would be glad to see an intelligent policy of systematic dictatorship removal, if it can be done without endangering our own nation, either due to ill will growing or over-extension of the military.
I haven't seen it yet. When you have limited resources, it becomes imperative you use them wisely. Iraq, in my opnion, given the pre-conflict rationale, and the discernable cost, diplomatically and monetarily, was a bad idea. If the best you can do, after the fact, is say it was really just a humanitarian mission, without outlining what this means in the context of the US' greater foreign policy, consider me nonplussed.
quote: he saw an evil man, he saw evil beng done unto innocents, he knew he would get flack, possibly kill his politcal career, but he did it anyway, and I admire and respect him for that.
then
quote: He chose Iraq because he could send a message with it, they were evil, their are others who know they are, Korea, Libya, Iran etc. Iraq was strong enough to seem powerful to them, but weak enough that we would not have to send so many of our people to their deaths, with Iraq he sent a clear message to the other Saddams in this world, "This will not stand." and guess what, Korea reinitiated diplomatic talks, and Libya said, hey we want to play nice now. They are getting the point, many birds, one stone.
Point 1 says "he did it" because Sadaam had to be stopped and he was willingd to risk it all to stop this one eviel man.
Point 2 says "he did it" because Iraq would show a clear message to every evil tyrant that the US has a code of conduct they must adhere to or risk destruction.
These are two different reasons for why "he did it." Which is it? Even here we can't get a straight answer, but a flowing amorphous answer that is difficult to argue with because it never stays still long enough for us to understand it.
Point 1 is a noble, Alamo type last stand against one particular evil.
Point 2 is a rational, thoughtful piece of diplomatic manuevering.
I have trouble believing that point 2 was the main reason though.
A) Charles Taylor became a problem only after the war began, and was officially over (the shooting war). President Bush did not use his new found big stick to push the anti-dictator reform around the world. He tried to avoid helping get rid of this scum.
B) Syria, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia, four very intolerant, dangerous and abusive dictatorships are actually being backed by our war on terrorism, or our economy driven administration.
This claim is new and sounds similar to the "evil man" claim that only began as the war moved on. It seems that we pick the few advantages the war has caused, then claim them for the reason we went to war in the first place.
Kind of like Germany claime "We went into WWI in order to improve medical techniques that have and will save several times more people than were killed in that war."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I dunno, I'm so busy, plus there's this guy O'Brien who keeps stalking me at work.
EDIT: Oh, and lest I forget, I need to make sure that the 10,000 boots my company promised are delivered... No wait, that was 5,000 boots. And a quarter bar of chocolate, of course.
posted
Your aware of what Kasie, I know you read it, I was telling Bok where it was from. What are ou aware of?
Posts: 1900 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He did not do it for politics, he did not do it for oil, he did not do it for his dad. He did it because it had to be done, he did what he had to do, and he is not trying to hide it, it may be unpopular but he stands by his decisions, so I respect him, and he is one of the few people in the spotlight of todays world that I can admire, not for intelligence, achievement, but for this, he knows what he has to do, and he does it, regardless of the ocnsequences, he saw an evil man, he saw evil beng done unto innocents, he knew he would get flack, possibly kill his politcal career, but he did it anyway,...
If you believe that the Palestineans are innocent, and the tyranny of Isreal over their lives is evil, then the very same thing can be said of Osama-Bin Laden. And many of the backers of Al Queda do believe it.
posted
Rhaegar, did you see MrSquicky's post about Pascal's Wager? I can't remember if you were in that thread or not. Here's the link. The first post in the thread is all I think you should read.
Edit:
As to my own opinion, I don't think Iraq had anything to do with "doing the right thing." The neo-conservatives have wanted to go to Iraq for a long time, for myriad reasons. They were going to do it come hell or high water regardless of whether it was right or wrong. They did it because they believed that it was in America's interests, nothing more.
posted
Rhaeger, you should give it up, Bush is a bad President even for true conservatives. Thanks to his gigantic deficit spending we are now pursuing a weak dollar policy and our even our great gandchildren will be paying his lunacies off.
Conservatives do no crusade around the world for "natural/human" rights. ( just in case you think this is some sort of acceptable reason for Iraq)
Conservatives do not clamor for the loss of civil liberties even if it were for some noticeable increase of security.
Conservatives are Realist War theorists, they fight all the wars that they have to, but ONLY the ones they have to. Do you think we HAD to fight the war in Iraq? What would have happened to us if we didn't? Please don't tell me you believe the Bush administration's 5th alteration on the WMD line: "well, he could possibly have gotten them over time and used them on us." Face it, even Bush in his own words has pretty much admitted WMD was nearly all a hoax.
For these reasons and many more, Bush is not conservative, and he shames Edmund Burke every time he calls himself one.
Do you also support Saddam for gassing his own people? After all, he also did it because he believed it had to be done, that he did what he had to do. It may have been unpopular but Saddam stood by his decision, so do you support Saddam as well for the same reason?
Or do you admit that simply doing whatever YOU believe has to be done is insufficient to be a good leader?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguments abound whether Bush went to war because of honor and integrity alone - however the arguments aginst him are only supposition and not proven facts. As a matter of fact most accusations against him are wrong. Boconon said: "he did it because of imminent danger from WMD to ourselves and/or our allies, as well as strong al-qaeda links"
Of course, now we know Bush said the opposite on going to war because of imminent danger - he said we had to act before it reached that point, that there was a "gathering storm." He also was correct about the WMD - according to Lord Hutton's report and George Tenet, and the troops of Special Forces we have, and the Turks have, sitting on the Syrian border watching the Syrian Desert where our Satellite imagery showed them hiding the WMD. He also was correct about the links to Al Qaeda.: (If you don't mind a cross link with an ornery thread}
quote:Saddam’s real WMD was terrorism: Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who previously ran an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is currently at large, fled to Iraq and received medical care in Baghdad shortly after the Taliban fell. He then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. He has since been liinked to terror attacks against American troops in Iraq.
Back in January of 2002 Nawaz al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Midhar (9-11 hijackers who slammed American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people) reportedly met Iraqi diplomat and VIP airport greeter Ahmed Hikmat Shakir in Kula Lampur, Malaysia. Shakir reportedly then escorted them to an al Qaeda 9-11 planning meeting. Shakir was arrested in Qatar six days after 9-11. Authorities then discovered documents linking him to the 1993 WTC bombing and al Qaeda’s plot to blow up 12 American jets over the Pacific Ocean.
Significantly, a Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge, Harold Baer, recently ordered Saddam Hussein, his ousted regime, Osama bin Laden, and others to pay $104 million in damages to the families of the 2,750 victims of the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers. He found “by evidence satisfactory to the court, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
Abu Nidal Organization - Total Killed: 407, Total Wounded: 788, Americans Killed: 10, Americans Wounded: 58
Ansar al-Islam - Total Killed: 114, Total Wounded: 16, Americans Killed: 1, Americans Wounded: —
Arab Liberation Front - Total Killed: 4, Total Wounded: 6, Americans Killed: —, Americans Wounded: —
Hamas - Total Killed: 224, Total Wounded: 1,445, Americans Killed: 17, Americans Wounded: 30
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) - Total Killed: 44, Total Wounded: 327, Americans Killed: —, Americans Wounded: 2
Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) - Total Killed: 17, Total Wounded: 43, Americans Killed: 7, Americans Wounded: 1
Palestine Liberation Front - Total Killed: 1, Total Wounded: 42, Americans Killed: 1, Americans Wounded: —
Total - Total Killed: 811, Total Wounded: 2,667, Americans Killed: 36, Americans Wounded: 91
Sources: U.S. Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, “1968 - 2003: Total Persons Killed/Wounded—International and Accepted Incidents.” Figures prepared for author November 17, 2003. Statistics on Ansar al-Islam: Jonathan Landay, “Islamic militants kill senior Kurdish general.” Knight-Ridder News Service, February 11, 2003. Catherine Taylor, “Saddam and bin Laden help fanatics, say Kurds.” The Times of London, March 28, 2002.
posted
WLambert, you forgot to mention that a few of those terrorist organizations were, and maybe secretly still are, funded by Israel too. The Mossad even created Hamas and the PFLP-GC (People's Front for the Libertation of Palestine - General Command (an even further splinter group from the PLO).
Israel now contends this was just an attempt to get Islamists to turn toward religion instead of the PLO but they don't like to talk about the extensive combat and explosives training they gave those groups. It's probably the training they're still passing on today. My point is not that Israel wants to kill itself, but that countries often engage in things that BlowBack on themselves, wouldn't you agree? The US is probably far more guilty of supporting dictators and terrorists than anyone else in the world. If that becomes an equivalent attribute of ourselves, then where is the moral brightline for war? Or is it OK because we are stronger?
[EDIT]Also, for Rhaegar and everyone who claims this is some kind of a message to the "evil" governments, WHY is Bush still funding and dealing with over half of our former Cold War minions would qualify as even more evil than Saddam Hussein??? I realize we can't attack them all at once, but can you explain why we still give huge amounts of money to them?
posted
Wm, on at least one occassion, Bush said that Iraq had the ability to launch attacks on our allies in 45 minutes. Or rather reiterated British reports, as he seems wont to do.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
It only gets worse.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
