Getting the US out of Iraq without losing.

[slash196]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_t...rge_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_t...rge_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

I've read that info before; however, although there MAY be grey area, it'll never come to pass. There is nothing he has done that clearly steps over the line to qualify as impeachable. Something solid, like, say, lying under oath.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_t...rge_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

I've read that info before; however, although there MAY be grey area, it'll never come to pass. There is nothing he has done that clearly steps over the line to qualify as impeachable. Something solid, like, say, lying under oath.

Well, he would have to actually go under oath for that to happen.

 

[mc00]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_t...rge_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

I've read that info before; however, although there MAY be grey area, it'll never come to pass. There is nothing he has done that clearly steps over the line to qualify as impeachable. Something solid, like, say, lying under oath.

so basicly... just because he didn't lied straight to your face let's keep the moron in office.. ok, and keep ranking debt and pass more sh!tty laws to benefit the politician not the people and create more terrorist thanks to bush believes..
whatever.. man I can't wait for 2008 election HOPEFULLY a real president get elected or more moron take offices. *sigh* endless..

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: mc00

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_t...rge_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

I've read that info before; however, although there MAY be grey area, it'll never come to pass. There is nothing he has done that clearly steps over the line to qualify as impeachable. Something solid, like, say, lying under oath.

so basicly... just because he didn't lied straight to your face let's keep the moron in office.. ok, and keep ranking debt and pass more sh!tty laws to benefit the politician not the people and create more terrorist thanks to bush believes..
whatever.. man I can't wait for 2008 election HOPEFULLY a real president get elected or more moron take offices. *sigh* endless..

OK the lie about WMD's is played out, we all were deceived, so end of that. What lies are you speaking of exactly?

Which sh!tty laws has he signed off on that benefit politicians and not me?

Where are the terrorists Bush has "created"?

Nothing but Bush hating rhetoric in your post. Im not a big fan, but come on lets not blow things out of proportion.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

Did you seriously just mention a UN peacekeeping force? Since when has the UN been able to keep the peace, or do anything for that matter?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

THere is no fixing Iraq. The sooner people realize that, then the sooner they can get on to the next thing.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
THere is no fixing Iraq. The sooner people realize that, then the sooner they can get on to the next thing.

Exactly, we say we want to keep terrorism out of the US yet we have a gaping holes called our borders that no one democrats or republicans want to fix. I would say that a much bigger problem than Iraq.

 

[maluckey]

Exactly, we say we want to keep terrorism out of the US yet we have a gaping holes called our borders that no one democrats or republicans want to fix. I would say that a much bigger problem than Iraq.

Ding! Ding! Ding!!! We have a winnah!

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: TravisT

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: TravisT
So you are saying that we are not fighting terrorism in Iraq? I would agree, Iraq is no longer the issue, it just happens to be where many terrorists are now. So are we to ignore terrorism now or what is your plan to actually counter terrorism? Or are you involved in the conspiracy of thinking we're over there for alternative reasons?

There is no way to militarily defeat terrorism. Unless you are willing to exterminate large swaths of the population. That is why our approach has been wrong from the start.

That wasn't the question, the question was what was YOUR plan to counter terrorism? A simple answer of "I don't know, but what we're doing now isn't working" isn't the answer I am looking for. We obviously know for a fact that sitting on our thumb doesn't either. So i'm curious on what a good resolution would be, and I am legitimately curious, trying to respond without a snide remark this time.

Sitting on our thumbs and doing nothing is certainly better than Iraq.
If you read the news lately about the NIE you'd know that the Iraqi war made the US more of a terrorist target.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: maluckey

Exactly, we say we want to keep terrorism out of the US yet we have a gaping holes called our borders that no one democrats or republicans want to fix. I would say that a much bigger problem than Iraq.

Ding! Ding! Ding!!! We have a winnah!

I'll second that!

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: mc00

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: blackangst1

And anyone who thinks Bush will be somehow impeached or indicted on war crimes, you are obscenely naive.

Thinking he will and thinking he should be are very, very different things.

Yep very different. So tell me...what impeachable offense has Bush commited? Hmmm? Oh thats right, none. I see. People are just arbitrarily wanting to add impeachable offenses to the list. Got it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_t...rge_W._Bush#Rationales_for_impeachment

I've read that info before; however, although there MAY be grey area, it'll never come to pass. There is nothing he has done that clearly steps over the line to qualify as impeachable. Something solid, like, say, lying under oath.

so basicly... just because he didn't lied straight to your face let's keep the moron in office.. ok, and keep ranking debt and pass more sh!tty laws to benefit the politician not the people and create more terrorist thanks to bush believes..
whatever.. man I can't wait for 2008 election HOPEFULLY a real president get elected or more moron take offices. *sigh* endless..

OK the lie about WMD's is played out, we all were deceived, so end of that. What lies are you speaking of exactly?

Which sh!tty laws has he signed off on that benefit politicians and not me?

Where are the terrorists Bush has "created"?

Nothing but Bush hating rhetoric in your post. Im not a big fan, but come on lets not blow things out of proportion.

Actually, the lie about WMDs is very important, because if we weren't actually threatened by Iraq, then our war was a war of agression. Now, here's the thing: wars of agression are ILLEGAL. No matter what your opinion of the Geneva Convention is, the simple fact is that it remains, under the constitution, the highest law in the land, a position it shares with other treaties ratified by the US senate and the Constitution of the united states. If Bush perpetrated a war of agression, then he is a criminal, not just in internation eyes but UNDER AMERICAN LAW AS WELL. In summary, Bush MAY have committed a federal crime. Therefore, it is up to the Congress, in impeachment hearings, to decide whether there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to bring him to trial, and in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to try him. We can bring him up on charges of war crimes, either in our own justice system or in international court. He could walk free. He could be imprisoned. I personally would like to see him executed.

And most of all, they need to try every member of his cabinet for conspiracy to commit fraud against the united states.I personally believe that every member of that government leadership could be tried and convicted in a truly impartial courtroom, and that's not just a belief, it's the truth.


edit: fixed a grammar thing that was annoying me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: slash196
Actually, the lie about WMDs is very important, because if we weren't actually threatened by Iraq, then our war was a war of agression. Now, here's the thing: wars of agression are ILLEGAL. No matter what your opinion of the Geneva Convention is, the simple fact is that it remains, under the constitution, the highest law in the land, a position it shares with other treaties ratified by the US senate and the Constitution of the united states. If Bush perpetrated a war of agression, then he is a criminal, not just in internation eyes but UNDER AMERICAN LAW AS WELL. In summary, Bush MAY have committed a federal crime. Therefore, it is up to the Congress, in impeachment hearings, to decide whether there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to bring him to trial, and in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to try him. We can bring him up on charges of war crimes, either in our own justice system or in international court. He could walk free. He could be imprisoned. I personally would like to see him executed.

And most of all, they need to try every member of his cabinet for conspiracy to commit fraud against the united states.I personally believe that every member of that government leadership could be tried and convicted in a truly impartial courtroom, and that's not just a belief, it's the truth.


edit: fixed a grammar thing that was annoying me.

So we are going to impeach the President because he broke the UN charter? That makes a lot of sense. Were you saying this when Clinton was attacking Kosovo without UN consent and without even claiming we were at risk?
Bush 41 invaded Panama!! Impeach him
Reagan invaded Grenada!!! Impeach him
JFK, LBJ, Nixon all attacked Vietnam!! Impeach them.

And people complain about me?? :shocked:

I really hope that if Dems take over that the first two things they do is try to raise taxes and impeach Bush, those two things alone would add 20% to Bush's approval numbers, and help the Republicans in 2008 in a HUGE way.

 

[Lemon law]

Well one thing---in 1974 it was somewhat the Repubs leading the charge to impeach Nixon--and tricky Dick read de Tea leaves and resigned---thereby retaining his pension.
And in 1974 an enraged electorate sure punished the Republicans again by throwing many of Nixons old supporters out.---and threw Ford out in 1976.

If GWB gets impeached--or is forced to resign---I hardly think your premise of an angry electorate punishing the impeachers holds any water. If Bush blows Iraq---which he seems bound and determined to do---I hardly think the voters will forgive GWB or the GOP.---but to cut loses---teh Repubs will be out--front and center---to give GWB the old heave ho.

Lots of ground already exist to impeach and convict Bush already---violations of domestic laws---some 750 self admitted--violations of international law--but you know that old saying--give the man enough rope and he will hang himself.

Regardless of the outcome of the election of 06---I have a unsettling feeling that GWB is likely to do something real crazy afterwords.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
Step 1: Throw Republicans out of office.

Step 2: Congress declares the war in Iraq illegal, impeaches Bush and sends him to the Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

Step 3: Transfer control to multinational UN peacekeeping force (which by the way would not be hard at all to get with Bush out of office and an official apology for the war).

Step 4: Crack that champagne.


This is pretty much the only scenario I can see that doesn't end in abject defeat for the US and the utter failure of the Iraqi state. If you have an alternative, I'd be glad to hear it, but frankly I don't think one exists. The only way this is ever going to get solved is if we admit we're wrong and punish the people who forced us into this mistake in the first place.

5. All the terrorist decide that they no longer want to kill us for being infidels.

6. Cats and dogs start living together peacefully.

BTW: asking the UN to do anything is a waste of time? Darfur= 400,000 dead. Rwandan = 800,000+ dead. Kosovo = 10,000+ dead. UN invovlement in any of these during the killings = 0!!!!!!

Ps. How many UN troops are now in Lebanon?

Ugh, your response is such a waste of time...but I guess I am obligated to respond.

OK, you've completely dismissed my points about a withdrawal from Iraq (no, my plan won't end terrorism...but that's like saying the recipe for a cake is worthless because it won't give you a pie) without providing a single instance of reasoning that would render any of my ideas unworkable. Furthermore, you somehow managed to promote MY point on UN involvement. That's so dumb it's impressive.

You are an intellectual wasteland, a hodgepodge of contradictory beliefs with no connection to reality or substantive backing. For the sake of this board, just close your account.

No need to respond to the "Professor". He won't read your post anyway. His knee is too busy jerking.
I like the plan. <Jean Luc Picard>engage! *points finger in air

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Whenever you hear the word "easy" in regards to a complex problem, you know a simpleton is about open their mouth. Lets see what the OP has to offer us.

Step 1. So easy, the democrats havent figured it out. Truely easy.


Step 2. Oh yes simply declares Iraq illegal now, even without any laws that can deem it illegal. Then imppeches a sitting president for breaking a law that doesnt exist.
This is simply a great idea.

Step 3. Yes, the UN that got a bomb blownup nears it office and bolted out of Iraq will happily send in their inept forces to become targets for IEDs. You can count on them happily doing this.

Step 4. About the only thing that is simple and judging by your previous 3 steps. I think you may have skipped them and went right to this before writing.

Speaking of simpletons, I am glad you weighed in. You might consider learning how to spell truly though.
Bush "declared" a sovereign nation "illegal" and proceeded to create a huge mess, ostensibly to "duhhh go get dose ragheads who 'tacked us on nineleben" and to find the yellow cake connection and mobile WMD labs. Last I checked, his plan wasn't the greatest. I think we should give this one a chance, K?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Genx87
Whenever you hear the word "easy" in regards to a complex problem, you know a simpleton is about open their mouth. Lets see what the OP has to offer us.

Step 1. So easy, the democrats havent figured it out. Truely easy.


Step 2. Oh yes simply declares Iraq illegal now, even without any laws that can deem it illegal. Then imppeches a sitting president for breaking a law that doesnt exist.
This is simply a great idea.

Step 3. Yes, the UN that got a bomb blownup nears it office and bolted out of Iraq will happily send in their inept forces to become targets for IEDs. You can count on them happily doing this.

Step 4. About the only thing that is simple and judging by your previous 3 steps. I think you may have skipped them and went right to this before writing.

Speaking of simpletons, I am glad you weighed in. You might consider learning how to spell truly though.
Bush "declared" a sovereign nation "illegal" and proceeded to create a huge mess, ostensibly to "duhhh go get dose ragheads who 'tacked us on nineleben" and to find the yellow cake connection and mobile WMD labs. Last I checked, his plan wasn't the greatest. I think we should give this one a chance, K?

Logical evalution of a situation should be implimented

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: slash196
Actually, the lie about WMDs is very important, because if we weren't actually threatened by Iraq, then our war was a war of agression. Now, here's the thing: wars of agression are ILLEGAL. No matter what your opinion of the Geneva Convention is, the simple fact is that it remains, under the constitution, the highest law in the land, a position it shares with other treaties ratified by the US senate and the Constitution of the united states. If Bush perpetrated a war of agression, then he is a criminal, not just in internation eyes but UNDER AMERICAN LAW AS WELL. In summary, Bush MAY have committed a federal crime. Therefore, it is up to the Congress, in impeachment hearings, to decide whether there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to bring him to trial, and in my opinion there is more than enough evidence to try him. We can bring him up on charges of war crimes, either in our own justice system or in international court. He could walk free. He could be imprisoned. I personally would like to see him executed.

And most of all, they need to try every member of his cabinet for conspiracy to commit fraud against the united states.I personally believe that every member of that government leadership could be tried and convicted in a truly impartial courtroom, and that's not just a belief, it's the truth.


edit: fixed a grammar thing that was annoying me.

So we are going to impeach the President because he broke the UN charter? That makes a lot of sense. Were you saying this when Clinton was attacking Kosovo without UN consent and without even claiming we were at risk?
Bush 41 invaded Panama!! Impeach him
Reagan invaded Grenada!!! Impeach him
JFK, LBJ, Nixon all attacked Vietnam!! Impeach them.

And people complain about me?? :shocked:

I really hope that if Dems take over that the first two things they do is try to raise taxes and impeach Bush, those two things alone would add 20% to Bush's approval numbers, and help the Republicans in 2008 in a HUGE way.

It would seem that Bush broke the law regarding FISA. If the courts hold that warrantless wiretaps were illegal (and no law implemented since then would change that fact) then Bush will have committed a felony. Will he be impeached? I think not, but this might be a basis for it.

Raising taxes always hurts a party, so Bush has opted to pass the costs onto the children who can't vote anyway. As far as impeachment goes that all depends. If the Dems trot out weak violations, then you are correct. If they can increase their presence in Congress then they may have more access to documents which they can then make public at least in part. Depending on what is found, they could roast Bush alive and bask in glory. The caveat here is how complicit were the Dems who seemed rather spineless and rolled over when the war was started. We'll see.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Genx87
Whenever you hear the word "easy" in regards to a complex problem, you know a simpleton is about open their mouth. Lets see what the OP has to offer us.

Step 1. So easy, the democrats havent figured it out. Truely easy.


Step 2. Oh yes simply declares Iraq illegal now, even without any laws that can deem it illegal. Then imppeches a sitting president for breaking a law that doesnt exist.
This is simply a great idea.

Step 3. Yes, the UN that got a bomb blownup nears it office and bolted out of Iraq will happily send in their inept forces to become targets for IEDs. You can count on them happily doing this.

Step 4. About the only thing that is simple and judging by your previous 3 steps. I think you may have skipped them and went right to this before writing.

Speaking of simpletons, I am glad you weighed in. You might consider learning how to spell truly though.
Bush "declared" a sovereign nation "illegal" and proceeded to create a huge mess, ostensibly to "duhhh go get dose ragheads who 'tacked us on nineleben" and to find the yellow cake connection and mobile WMD labs. Last I checked, his plan wasn't the greatest. I think we should give this one a chance, K?

Logical evalution of a situation should be implimented

I keep hoping for that from our "leaders". It ain't happened yet.
Well, to be fair, GHW Bush understood it well enough. So did Dick Cheney, back when he worked for GHW Bush. I guess he must have forgotten, what with all those bedtime stories regarding yellow cake and WMD from Wolfowitz and the rest of the neocon junta.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: yllus
Diplomatic credibility means nothing. Words mean nothing. This is a fact of international politics. Nobody cares if the U.S. lied or not, because lying is what you hear in international politics 99% of the time anyways. Progress and agreement only comes when lives and/or profits are threatened. There is nothing useful to repair, other than to make Americans feel good about themselves.

Naivety comes from ignoring historical process. Men are the same the world over. Eventually sentiment towards pointless violence builds to the point that some party seizes the public fervour and initiates the transition to stability. Don't believe me? Then how did the Taliban conquer Afghanistan in the 90s? It sure as hell wasn't because everyone in the country shared their crackpot views of Islam.

The U.S.'s goal in Iraq is merely to make sure the right party rides that public sentiment to power. A framework, like providing assistance in drafting a constitution, is also good stuff. This is what they're doing. Waiting for the wave. Can't do much else - you've got to let that pent-up hatred exhaust itself first.

The world is completely apathetic about Iraq, and the Middle East in general. Which is why the entire region is full of dictators and otherwise undemocratic states. Even Serbia was barely a blip on the radar, despite technically belonging to Europe of all continents.

Again, while I like what your aims are here, the last part of what you wrote just screams naivety. You will not win over major players who have the military muscle to be useful in Iraq by lowering tarriffs. The cost/benefit simply doesn't exist. Running an active military campaign is expensive, as I need not explain to anyone. It'd take one hell of a drop in tarriffs to even just offset that expenditure.

It's (usually) not about ideology, it's always about dollars and cents. Even fears for security boil down to dollars and cents - you can't make a buck if the marketplace is unsafe (cue idiots squawking about Haliburton). Nobody cares for a pointless apology an U.S. President can offer.

You're waiting for a wave that's never going to come. You've still got the mentality that Cheney had in '03 when he said we'd be greeted as liberators. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we should let everyone kill each other and then stuff the survivors into a box labeled "Democracy". I'm saying that the ethical consequences of such a humanitarian crisis are simply unacceptable, and "letting them blow off some steam" doesn't work, because they're not just blowing off steam. The kettle is getting hotter and hotter every day.

The reference to tariffs was simply a hypothetical example of diplomatic coercion. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the skill of American diplomats to ask our allies to join us in a HUMANITARIAN mission. France and Germany wouldn't back the Iraq war, not because they didn't care about Iraq but because it was a baseless power-grab by someone they saw as a dangerous radical.

And to those who say "The UN couldn't do anything, it's toothless", I say "Well then, lets give it some teeth". Maybe pay our dues once in a while? Commit troops to multinational peacekeeping forces? Instead of just blowing them off, why don't we STRENGTHEN the UN? Is there a reason besides backwards-ass isolationism?

No, the wave always comes. It came when the first Americans rose up against the British en masse. It came when the Iranians threw out their puppet of a Shah. It came when the People's Liberation Army fought the Nationalists in China off to exile on islands like Taiwan. It came when the Taliban emerged in control of most of Afghanistan under Mullah Omar after the rape of two young boys that sparked him into action and prominence. The difference between the first and the rest of the examples is merely how those victors then handled the state after they took control of it. Eventually, level-headedness prevails and a system that encourages stability will take root.

Your refusal to believe in an so far unknown method to involve the world community, which even Senator Kerry declined to detail during his presidential run, is based on emotions and not logic. If it was "easy", it would be easy to describe. I've not yet seen it once described. And lest I need to say so one more time, nobody gives a crap about humanitarian missions. Go ahead and try to sell that reasoning to the Sudanese.

The United Nations isn't supposed to be a military power. Never was meant for the role, and never will play the role. If the U.S. contributes the massive amount of dues it's (ridiculously) expected to contribute, the U.N. will become an arm of the U.S. and will lose all credit in the eyes of the world anyways. Neither will pumping in even a moderately large amount of money convince governments to sacrifice troops, armanents and logistical expenditures to a "humanitarian mission". If you say I'm wrong, I'd like to see any proof to date that backs you up.

 

[TravisT]

I'm not a right-wing partyline voter. I consider myself fairly moderate. So watching the majority of those who visit this forum simply argue the talking points of one party is annoying.

I am late getting back to this thread, so i'll just try to cover the few posts that responded to my question about how to solve the problem we're currently in. The problem I have with the Democratic plan of countering terrorism is that there is none. Now I will agree with the majority of the points made on ways to fight terrorism. We need to work on our foreign policy. We need the world on our side when it comes to fighting terrorism.

However, I also believe Clinton had a pretty good foreign policy. During his time in office I felt things were relatively peaceful and concern of terrorism was low. We also know that Al Qaeda attacked once while he was in office, and planned their 9/11 attacks during his time in office. I'm not trying to say that it is Clinton's fault we got attacked, I am saying that having a good foreign policy doesn't change a persons beliefs. We could go back to being a peaceful nation, ignoring the radical muslims who hate our country so much. They would again find a way to bring the attacks on our country is my belief.

I think we have a serious delima here that it is either "them or us". We can boost our defense, work on our poor intelligence and play a defensive game with the terrorists. I hate to compare this to sports, but even the best football defenses get scored on. Right now the Republicans look at this as "the best defense is a good offense". If we simply play only a defensive game, we will be attacked again. Maybe not within a year of it, maybe not within 5 years. But we will allow them to push multiple plans of terrorism to our soil.

I would say that I am ready to get out of Iraq. I don't think we can just up and leave right now, but we need to make a much bigger push at getting Iraq on their own feet and protecting their own borders.

 

[Lemon law]

To put it in 1960 terms---the establishment----------vs. the forces of terror--or anarchy--or the bad guys--evil doers if you are a GWB thinker on the latter is a war that always goes on.

Usually the establishment always wins----with the other groups--however you want to demonise them-- only having an appeal when the establishment screws up---and acts in a biased and unfair manner.

Has it ever occured to anyone that the establishment is screwing up---and the way to beat terror is to reduce the inequities---and not increase it as GWB is doing.---we have managed to totally destroy Iraqi infrastructure and the quality of life-------and we are building nothing to get the average Iraqi a better life. Of course they want us gone.---because all we are doing is pandering to a few Iraqi leaders---feathering their nests---and lets not forget US corporations--and to hell with everyone else.

And in conditions like that---terrorists have tremendous appeal.

 

[slash196]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: slash196

Originally posted by: yllus
Diplomatic credibility means nothing. Words mean nothing. This is a fact of international politics. Nobody cares if the U.S. lied or not, because lying is what you hear in international politics 99% of the time anyways. Progress and agreement only comes when lives and/or profits are threatened. There is nothing useful to repair, other than to make Americans feel good about themselves.

Naivety comes from ignoring historical process. Men are the same the world over. Eventually sentiment towards pointless violence builds to the point that some party seizes the public fervour and initiates the transition to stability. Don't believe me? Then how did the Taliban conquer Afghanistan in the 90s? It sure as hell wasn't because everyone in the country shared their crackpot views of Islam.

The U.S.'s goal in Iraq is merely to make sure the right party rides that public sentiment to power. A framework, like providing assistance in drafting a constitution, is also good stuff. This is what they're doing. Waiting for the wave. Can't do much else - you've got to let that pent-up hatred exhaust itself first.

The world is completely apathetic about Iraq, and the Middle East in general. Which is why the entire region is full of dictators and otherwise undemocratic states. Even Serbia was barely a blip on the radar, despite technically belonging to Europe of all continents.

Again, while I like what your aims are here, the last part of what you wrote just screams naivety. You will not win over major players who have the military muscle to be useful in Iraq by lowering tarriffs. The cost/benefit simply doesn't exist. Running an active military campaign is expensive, as I need not explain to anyone. It'd take one hell of a drop in tarriffs to even just offset that expenditure.

It's (usually) not about ideology, it's always about dollars and cents. Even fears for security boil down to dollars and cents - you can't make a buck if the marketplace is unsafe (cue idiots squawking about Haliburton). Nobody cares for a pointless apology an U.S. President can offer.

You're waiting for a wave that's never going to come. You've still got the mentality that Cheney had in '03 when he said we'd be greeted as liberators. If I understand you correctly, you're basically saying that we should let everyone kill each other and then stuff the survivors into a box labeled "Democracy". I'm saying that the ethical consequences of such a humanitarian crisis are simply unacceptable, and "letting them blow off some steam" doesn't work, because they're not just blowing off steam. The kettle is getting hotter and hotter every day.

The reference to tariffs was simply a hypothetical example of diplomatic coercion. I refuse to believe that it is beyond the skill of American diplomats to ask our allies to join us in a HUMANITARIAN mission. France and Germany wouldn't back the Iraq war, not because they didn't care about Iraq but because it was a baseless power-grab by someone they saw as a dangerous radical.

And to those who say "The UN couldn't do anything, it's toothless", I say "Well then, lets give it some teeth". Maybe pay our dues once in a while? Commit troops to multinational peacekeeping forces? Instead of just blowing them off, why don't we STRENGTHEN the UN? Is there a reason besides backwards-ass isolationism?

No, the wave always comes. It came when the first Americans rose up against the British en masrese. It came when the Iranians threw out their puppet of a Shah. It came when the People's Liberation Army fought the Nationalists in China off to exile on islands like Taiwan. It came when the Taliban emerged in control of most of Afghanistan under Mullah Omar after the rape of two young boys that sparked him into action and prominence. The difference between the first and the rest of the examples is merely how those victors then handled the state after they took control of it. Eventually, level-headedness pvails and a system that encourages stability will take root.

Your refusal to believe in an so far unknown method to involve the world community, which even Senator Kerry declined to detail during his presidential run, is based on emotions and not logic. If it was "easy", it would be easy to describe. I've not yet seen it once described. And lest I need to say so one more time, nobody gives a crap about humanitarian missions. Go ahead and try to sell that reasoning to the Sudanese.

The United Nations isn't supposed to be a military power. Never was meant for the role, and never will play the role. If the U.S. contributes the massive amount of dues it's (ridiculously) expected to contribute, the U.N. will become an arm of the U.S. and will lose all credit in the eyes of the world anyways. Neither will pumping in even a moderately large amount of money convince governments to sacrifice troops, armanents and logistical expenditures to a "humanitarian mission". If you say I'm wrong, I'd like to see any proof to date that backs you up.

It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye, but give the conflict a couple years, and then take a look at where we are. I have a feeling my point of view will be vindicated.