Group Seeks Change In Security Policy - Dignitaries Fault Bush Administration....UPDATE: Now Call for Bush Ouster

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari

Democratization of the Middle East has to start somehow, why not by war. Furthermore, yes, it may take decades or later, but nobody expected democracy to come to fruitation within a year or two. That's why I applaud Bush for making the tough choices and sticking by them. Win or lose, he's a man of strong conviction whose heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct.

What I find most hypocritical is that during the 1990s liberals complained that innocents in Iraq were being harmed by the sanctions, to the tune of 500,000 dead babies. Now that Bush has done something about it, liberals are complaining that Bush brought down one of the most tyrranical regimes of the 20th century. Amazing.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Dari

.......

The hard parts came when he tried to stop their funding and ask the world to help in the elimination of outlawed nations that posed a threat to the United States and/or its neighbors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As I understand it most of AQ's funding comes from Saudi Arabia as does its leadership and many of its adherents. Why did invading Iraq make more sense than invading Saudi Arabia if striking a blow at AQ was the primary focus?

I was talking about outlawed nations such as Iraq and Iran, not Al Qaeda.

heh, simple minded logic coming from a person supporting simple minded policy of a simple minded president.

Tell me, what prediction of this administration has come true so far? Have the Iraqi people been greeting our troops with flowers after we "liberated" them? Has the Admin correctly determine the level of resistance? Has the Admin correctly predicted the cost of this war? Or has this Admin found the evidence that supported their prewar intelligence?

After one after another failure and false predictions, what makes you think Bush's heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct? Maybe you haven't heard or simply just ignore Bush parading his new gun collection or Cheney and his Halliburton enjoying non-competing bids for big projects?

Do you really think Saddam is the only evil person in the entire Iraq, or do you think the racial and religious conflicts is going to disappear after Saddam. Do you think American has better chance of fighting against terrorism in this new battle ground thousands of miles away with tons of sympathetic supporters created by this occupation by force with poor planning? Do you think Iraqi has favorable opinion of American now after all the death and instability they suffered over the past year? How do you propose American force American style democracy down the throat of people who neither like us nor think like us? Or do you propose we rule them until this generation of American hating Iraqi are all gone and we can brain wash the next generation of Iraqis into model citizen like we planned?

Bush had many options to spread democracy throughout Middle East. Many of them do not require force. Why not start with Saudi Arabia where American already has strong military presence and influence and, one can easily argue, where the problem of terrorism we faced today started. Could it be because Bush family already has a strong tie with the current corrupted regime? One can only wonder......

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari
Democratization of the Middle East has to start somehow, why not by war. Furthermore, yes, it may take decades or later, but nobody expected democracy to come to fruitation within a year or two. That's why I applaud Bush for making the tough choices and sticking by them. Win or lose, he's a man of strong conviction whose heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct.

I think it's a bit early to be deciding whether Bush's actions are correct or not. The saga of liberating Iraq is in its infancy and only years from now will we know the true ramifications of what we've done there. The whole thing may turn to crap. Again, if the M.E. region desired freedom and democracy so badly, why haven't the people there clamored for it? Why haven't they risen up against their oppressive governments? You can't just hand people something and expect them to value it. They have to do it themselves and I don't really see that happening. So don't jump the gun and claim success when we're no where near that point yet.

What I find most hypocritical is that during the 1990s liberals complained that innocents in Iraq were being harmed by the sanctions, to the tune of 500,000 dead babies. Now that Bush has done something about it, liberals are complaining that Bush brought down one of the most tyrranical regimes of the 20th century. Amazing.

There are plenty of hypocritical moments for conservatives too, I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this statement ... perhaps you should consider Bush's own mandate during the 2000 campaign season in which he swore off nation-building? Additionally, the conservative leaders in this country have historically been against international adventurism and meddling in foreign affairs unless there was a damn good reason. Only the neo-conservatives seem eager for tinkering with the Middle East landscape.

Who knows how history will judge Bush's meddling? It could turn out for the better, it could turn out to be a huge mistake. The point is nobody, yourself included, has a crystal ball.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Dari
Democratization of the Middle East has to start somehow, why not by war. Furthermore, yes, it may take decades or later, but nobody expected democracy to come to fruitation within a year or two. That's why I applaud Bush for making the tough choices and sticking by them. Win or lose, he's a man of strong conviction whose heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct.

I think it's a bit early to be deciding whether Bush's actions are correct or not. The saga of liberating Iraq is in its infancy and only years from now will we know the true ramifications of what we've done there. The whole thing may turn to crap. Again, if the M.E. region desired freedom and democracy so badly, why haven't the people there clamored for it? Why haven't they risen up against their oppressive governments? You can't just hand people something and expect them to value it. They have to do it themselves and I don't really see that happening. So don't jump the gun and claim success when we're no where near that point yet.

What I find most hypocritical is that during the 1990s liberals complained that innocents in Iraq were being harmed by the sanctions, to the tune of 500,000 dead babies. Now that Bush has done something about it, liberals are complaining that Bush brought down one of the most tyrranical regimes of the 20th century. Amazing.

There are plenty of hypocritical moments for conservatives too, I'm not sure why you felt the need to make this statement ... perhaps you should consider Bush's own mandate during the 2000 campaign season in which he swore off nation-building? Additionally, the conservative leaders in this country have historically been against international adventurism and meddling in foreign affairs unless there was a damn good reason. Only the neo-conservatives seem eager for tinkering with the Middle East landscape.

Who knows how history will judge Bush's meddling? It could turn out for the better, it could turn out to be a huge mistake. The point is nobody, yourself included, has a crystal ball.

Who the phuck said I had a crystal ball? The difference between me and you is that I am impartial when it comes to international politics. Unlike you, I have no (domestic) political agenda except the supremacy of the US and the triumph of our interests over those of others. I, unlike you, am willing to cross party lines when the policies of those outside my party is the right one.

International politics surrounds me, literally. While you're reading about events around the globe, I have a unique opportunity to see it at first hand. Your stupid question asking why the arabs haven't risen against the strongmen in that region underscores how little you understand the Middle East.

I'm willing to bet that you really got into middle east politics only during the second intifada and/or after september 11, right?

Look, no one knows what the future holds. But there are people out there who spent their whole professional lives studying a particular region/people and writing policy paper about them. There are also people out there that can look back into the past and see what parallel's to current event. It may not be a guarantee, but I'm sure they have a better understanding of the effects of what were doing than you. It not only helps to study their ideas but also to talk to those that actually live there. I'm doing it and I suggest you do the same.

As I said earlier, the diplomats that are complaining created and maintained the old order that's causing us so many problems in the ME right now. In order to retain our influence, we have to shake things up and move in a new direction. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Understand?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari
Who the phuck said I had a crystal ball? The difference between me and you is that I am impartial when it comes to international politics. Unlike you, I have no (domestic) political agenda except the supremacy of the US and the triumph of our interests over those of others. I, unlike you, am willing to cross party lines when the policies of those outside my party is the right one.

Don't work yourself into a lather Dari. I was simply responding to your assertion that "Win or lose, he's a man of strong conviction whose heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct." And my response is still the same -- that it's too soon to judge whether his policies are correct. You only think they are.

International politics surrounds me, literally. While you're reading about events around the globe, I have a unique opportunity to see it at first hand. Your stupid question asking why the arabs haven't risen against the strongmen in that region underscores how little you understand the Middle East.

Why is that a stupid question? Our American revolutionaries threw off the yoke of the English monarchy and forged a new democratic nation with their blood and sweat. There's something to be said for wanting something so bad, you're willing to sacrafice everything to get it. I don't get that same sense from the ME population. And so we're just going to hand them a new democratic nation on a silver platter?

I'm willing to bet that you really got into middle east politics only during the second intifada and/or after september 11, right?

Look, no one knows what the future holds. But there are people out there who spent their whole professional lives studying a particular region/people and writing policy paper about them. There are also people out there that can look back into the past and see what parallel's to current event. It may not be a guarantee, but I'm sure they have a better understanding of the effects of what were doing than you. It not only helps to study their ideas but also to talk to those that actually live there. I'm doing it and I suggest you do the same.

As I said earlier, the diplomats that are complaining created and maintained the old order that's causing us so many problems in the ME right now. In order to retain our influence, we have to shake things up and move in a new direction. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Understand?

That's fine Dari, that's your opinion. Other people have differing opinions. Obviously, I have my reservations about starting a war in the ME for vastly fluctuating reasons and whether forcing a country into democracy will bear out or not. Before I pass judgement on whether our actions were correct or not, I'm willing to wait a while and see what happens. So far I don't like what I see, but who knows, maybe the next decade will see the region changing dramatically?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Dari
Who the phuck said I had a crystal ball? The difference between me and you is that I am impartial when it comes to international politics. Unlike you, I have no (domestic) political agenda except the supremacy of the US and the triumph of our interests over those of others. I, unlike you, am willing to cross party lines when the policies of those outside my party is the right one.

Don't work yourself into a lather Dari. I was simply responding to your assertion that "Win or lose, he's a man of strong conviction whose heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct." And my response is still the same -- that it's too soon to judge whether his policies are correct. You only think they are.

International politics surrounds me, literally. While you're reading about events around the globe, I have a unique opportunity to see it at first hand. Your stupid question asking why the arabs haven't risen against the strongmen in that region underscores how little you understand the Middle East.

Why is that a stupid question? Our American revolutionaries threw off the yoke of the English monarchy and forged a new democratic nation with their blood and sweat. There's something to be said for wanting something so bad, you're willing to sacrafice everything to get it. I don't get that same sense from the ME population. And so we're just going to hand them a new democratic nation on a silver platter?

I'm willing to bet that you really got into middle east politics only during the second intifada and/or after september 11, right?

Look, no one knows what the future holds. But there are people out there who spent their whole professional lives studying a particular region/people and writing policy paper about them. There are also people out there that can look back into the past and see what parallel's to current event. It may not be a guarantee, but I'm sure they have a better understanding of the effects of what were doing than you. It not only helps to study their ideas but also to talk to those that actually live there. I'm doing it and I suggest you do the same.

As I said earlier, the diplomats that are complaining created and maintained the old order that's causing us so many problems in the ME right now. In order to retain our influence, we have to shake things up and move in a new direction. It really doesn't get any simpler than that. Understand?

That's fine Dari, that's your opinion. Other people have differing opinions. Obviously, I have my reservations about starting a war in the ME for vastly fluctuating reasons and whether forcing a country into democracy will bear out or not. Before I pass judgement on whether our actions were correct or not, I'm willing to wait a while and see what happens. So far I don't like what I see, but who knows, maybe the next decade will see the region changing dramatically?

So far you don't like what you see? It's been only 3 years since 9/11 and 1 year since the invasion of Iraq. The rest of the world doesn't work at the speed of the internet.

As for your quip about democracy, let's not forget that our long-time allies Taiwan and South Korea were dictatorships until recently. And don't forget about those Central American countries...

In regards to your quip about changing reasons for the invasion of Iraq, again, that underscores your intelligence about the reasons why we invaded. You must've forgotten about the President's speech at the American Enterprise Institute last year and the countless speeches by Dr. Rice and Tony Blair before the invasion. But seeing your utter bias, I'm not surprised at your ignorance.

 

[DealMonkey]

No reason to get insulting Dari. Is that some sort of neo-con crutch? To call people "stupid" and question their intelligence when they have a difference of opinion?

Look, I'm keenly aware of the administration's varying reasons for invading Iraq. I think everyone is, with the possible exception of you and some of the extreme Bush fanboys around here. I'd rather not have to beat a dead horse here, but suffice to say that liberation was way down the list prior to March 2003. WAY down the list. It was all talk of mushroom clouds, anthrax, winnabegos of death, unmanned drones that could deliver WMDs, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, etc.

Don't tell me you're forgetting all of that?

 

[jackschmittusa]

Ah yes, Bush and his new methods.

pre-emptive war - the Japanese tried that

invading a sovereign country and installing the government of your choice - Hitler tried that

use of massive military presence to to influnce an entire region to adopt approved political systems - Soviets and the "Iron Curtain"

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Dari

What I find most hypocritical is that during the 1990s liberals complained that innocents in Iraq were being harmed by the sanctions, to the tune of 500,000 dead babies. Now that Bush has done something about it, liberals are complaining that Bush brought down one of the most tyrranical regimes of the 20th century. Amazing.

This is either a joke (I hope) or a stunningly myopic and silly line of argument. First, not all "liberals" were complaining about the sanctions, and second, it's not as though an unprovoked offensive war (which would violate the law of war but for Scty Rumsfeld's imaginative "anticipatory self-defense doctrine," which ignored the fact that Iraq posed no real-world threat to the US), killing untold thousands of civilians, was the only way of ending them.

By way of (gross) analogy, this is like saying, "Hey, you said you were sick of having your lunch money taken every day by bullies, and now that I've done something about it by burning down your school, you're still complaining. Amazing."

If this is the level of argument your position has reduced you to, it should tell you something about the inherent logic (or lack thereof) that underlies it.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Dari
Democratization of the Middle East has to start somehow, why not by war. Furthermore, yes, it may take decades or later, but nobody expected democracy to come to fruitation within a year or two. That's why I applaud Bush for making the tough choices and sticking by them. Win or lose, he's a man of strong conviction whose heart and policies are absolutely noble and correct.

It may well start by war - but how can you speak so much and not acknowledge the lack of legitimacy of America's role in starting the war? Do you not understand the difference between a civl war and a war initiated by invading foreigners? Ethnic pride is a powerful and dangerous thing - as Americans we're seeing proof of that in our own country.

And noble convictions? LOL. He's whored out the country for the rich oil and energy co's... Any of you neocons who can't bear to acknowledge that loses credibility.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Don_Vito

Originally posted by: Dari

What I find most hypocritical is that during the 1990s liberals complained that innocents in Iraq were being harmed by the sanctions, to the tune of 500,000 dead babies. Now that Bush has done something about it, liberals are complaining that Bush brought down one of the most tyrranical regimes of the 20th century. Amazing.

This is either a joke (I hope) or a stunningly myopic and silly line of argument. First, not all "liberals" were complaining about the sanctions, and second, it's not as though an unprovoked offensive war (which would violate the law of war but for Scty Rumsfeld's imaginative "anticipatory self-defense doctrine," which ignored the fact that Iraq posed no real-world threat to the US), killing untold thousands of civilians, was the only way of ending them.

By way of (gross) analogy, this is like saying, "Hey, you said you were sick of having your lunch money taken every day by bullies, and now that I've done something about it by burning down your school, you're still complaining. Amazing."

If this is the level of argument your position has reduced you to, it should tell you something about the inherent logic (or lack thereof) that underlies it.

That is an excellent point Don. If you flip Dari's ridiculous logic around one could argue that NeoCons never complained about the half million or so dead under U.S. sanctions during the 90s, yet now are SO concerned about the welfare of the Iraqi people.

 

[Michael]

DealMonkey - Actually, if 1/2 million really did die under the sanctions, then Dari's argument is even stronger. Even more reason to attack because of the great slaughter that the Baath party is visiting on their people.

The whole discussion on "preemptive" is also a red herring. The war was voted on and passed by the Congress and Senate. There was no further authorization needed - our Constitution does not say we can't go to war unless attacked. Personally, I think that Iraq was a huge danger to the USA and the longer we waited to attack, the greater the risk of huge strikes against US soil.

Michael

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Michael
Personally, I think that Iraq was a huge danger to the USA and the longer we waited to attack,

I love how people can run around making wild statements when there's no basis for it... Seems like its rampant not only in the white house...

Personally, I think the nation of Chile is a big threat to the US as well. I don't know why, but they just are... We need to eradicate those people from their repressive regime too...
:roll:

 

[GoodToGo]

Conjur, better update your thread. The group is now saying that Bush should NOT be relected. Details from CNN. This group btw doesnt sound like your normal run of the mill losers. They include generals, ambassadors, envoys etc and one of them even supported the Bush 2000 campaign. When will the neocons on the his board recognize what is going on in the US of A?

 

[Michael]

busmaster11 - You could say that Chile is a threat, but you'd have a much harder time proving it.

There is no doubt that Iraq was supporting terrorists and was a declared enemy of the United States. There is no doubt that they had chemical weapons and had long range missiles (at least in the past).

Michael

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - Actually, if 1/2 million really did die under the sanctions, then Dari's argument is even stronger. Even more reason to attack because of the great slaughter that the Baath party is visiting on their people.

The whole discussion on "preemptive" is also a red herring. The war was voted on and passed by the Congress and Senate. There was no further authorization needed - our Constitution does not say we can't go to war unless attacked. Personally, I think that Iraq was a huge danger to the USA and the longer we waited to attack, the greater the risk of huge strikes against US soil.

Michael

Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a woman; it's better to let them think they've won because emotion triumphs over logic.

 

[GoodToGo]

Originally posted by: Michael
busmaster11 - You could say that Chile is a threat, but you'd have a much harder time proving it.

There is no doubt that Iraq was supporting terrorists and was a declared enemy of the United States. There is no doubt that they had chemical weapons and had long range missiles (at least in the past).

Michael

Iraq was suporting terrorists but not against the US. They were mainly directed towards Israel and other countries. No proof still exists that Iraq was planning on using or had used terrorists against the United States. Also they may have had missiles with chemical or nuclear warheads but they were not of long enough range to reach the US or even the UK. In addition, the charge of a nuke reaching UK from Iraq within 45 minutes (or some ridiculous number like that) was totally shammed. Bush lied, Blair lied, get over it.

 

[boran]

Originally posted by: Michael
busmaster11 - You could say that Chile is a threat, but you'd have a much harder time proving it.

There is no doubt that Iraq was supporting terrorists and was a declared enemy of the United States. There is no doubt that they had chemical weapons and had long range missiles (at least in the past).

Michael

man, do you know you have been brainwashed, iraq was as much a threat to the US as vatican city is. sorry to say, but you have been majorily fooled there, by a mr G.W Bush (or one of his spin doctors).

- supporting terrorists: Saddam did support the families of palestinian sucide bombers, which is quite unrelated to al quaida (and dont go claiming tehre's a link between saddam and al quaida there has been no proof for that, there are some vague indications al quaida made attempts to get aid from saddam, but the two didnt really fare well together (there's a thread bout this, search ashcroft claims al quaida link or somesuch)

- long range missles: yes, maybe far enough for israel, but definetly no threat to the US, you're like practically half the world away from him.

- chemical weapons: come on, this one has been refuted long ago, there was about 0 proof of WMD's for this war, and I can conclude this because it's been a year since it started and we have not seen any WMD's or any proof that the US gouvernment claimed it had.

if you truely believe(d) iraq was a direct threat to the US, please get rid of the brainwashing.

 

[Michael]

The terrorist groups that are targeting Israel also are threats to the USA and to Americans overseas. They have targeted and killed Americans whenever they could.

There is no doubt that Iraq had the capability of making chemical weapons and their longstanding support of terrorism greatly inceased the risk of them supplying a terrorist group.

This is not brainwashing, this is facts. Some is my opinion, but it is a widely shared opinion.

Michael

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Michael
busmaster11 - You could say that Chile is a threat, but you'd have a much harder time proving it.
Michael

A bipartisan commission made up of Congressmen could not come up with any conclusive evidence of Iraq's involvement since 9/11. Instead, they found evidence that Iraq gave Al Qaeda the cold shoulder...

I wonder if you and Dickey C could possibly have a harder time proving things than that.

 

[Michael]

Did I claim 9/11 involvement? The answer, of course, is no.

Michael

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Michael
DealMonkey - Actually, if 1/2 million really did die under the sanctions, then Dari's argument is even stronger. Even more reason to attack because of the great slaughter that the Baath party is visiting on their people.

The whole discussion on "preemptive" is also a red herring. The war was voted on and passed by the Congress and Senate. There was no further authorization needed - our Constitution does not say we can't go to war unless attacked. Personally, I think that Iraq was a huge danger to the USA and the longer we waited to attack, the greater the risk of huge strikes against US soil.

Michael

Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a woman; it's better to let them think they've won because emotion triumphs over logic.

Please. There's no "argument" here, it's all just subjective opinion. You both wanted to attack Iraq and will generate any ridiculous reason to support that. Frankly, I don't care what flimsy excuses you generate, I still believe Iraq was a paper tiger. We didn't bother to discover that before launching a pre-emptive strike. Self defense I hear you both sniveling? Yeah, tell me what were we defending ourselves against? 20-year old soviet tanks and barely trained morons running around in the desert with AKs and RPGs? Pfffft. Whatever.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Michael
Did I claim 9/11 involvement? The answer, of course, is no.

Michael

Then you have really painted yourself into a corner. Iraq supports terrorists. Terrorists have killed Americans somewhere... True, but where's the connection between those two statements? How does that set them apart from Syria, Iran and N Korea? Why have we not attacked them?

If you attack another sovereign country you better damn well have the clearest sharpest most bulletproof evidence for it - not have a bunch of amateur neocon hooligans in the white house pressing buttons on a whim.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: Dari
Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a woman; it's better to let them think they've won because emotion triumphs over logic.

LOL... I thought the neocons were the ones that scream bloody murder whenever someone criticizes America. "Liberals, why do you hate America!?!?!"

Answer - we don't. We just love humanity more - in fact - we love it enough to want to make it better.

Neocons, OTOH, love Amrerica the way babies love their mother. "How dare you criticize my mommy!!!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Michael
The terrorist groups that are targeting Israel also are threats to the USA and to Americans overseas. They have targeted and killed Americans whenever they could.

There is no doubt that Iraq had the capability of making chemical weapons and their longstanding support of terrorism greatly inceased the risk of them supplying a terrorist group.

This is not brainwashing, this is facts. Some is my opinion, but it is a widely shared opinion.

Michael

Killing people because you have opinions is the mark of the criminally insane.

 

[Bowmaster]

...in the absence of chemical dependency or frank mental illness.

Well, that explains Rush's problem then.

The age of terrorism will be a hard fought battle and Iraq is central to that cause.

Ironic - Iraq was one of the few hardcore fanatical muslim-free places with very little to do with Western society terrorism (unless you are a tool who still believes they were like Cheney). We've just opened it to all the fanatics. Nice...