Howard Dean might look at this......

[maluckey]

Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Bush should have looked at that beforte he made a Campaign Promise that the US would not get into the business of Nation Building. I guess it was just a case of "Say Anything to get elected!"

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maluckey
Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Bush should have looked at that beforte he made a Campaign Promise that the US would not get into the business of Nation Building. I guess it was just a case of "Say Anything to get elected!"

Yeah, cause the issue of "nation building" is always such a contentious issue.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maluckey
Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Bush should have looked at that beforte he made a Campaign Promise that the US would not get into the business of Nation Building. I guess it was just a case of "Say Anything to get elected!"

Yeah, cause the issue of "nation building" is always such a contentious issue.

Hey I knew he was lying all along when he said that!

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Dean merely questions the US's authority and its motives for doing so in Iraq, and rightly so.

To unilaterally overstep your authority and invade another sovereign land merely due to your millitary prowess is crossing the last boundary into a slippery slope - where if you have the right (or wrong) people in charge, they will be able to justify anything because there will be precedence for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nice spin, maluckey, excellent disinformation. For Dean's actual position on Iraq, go here-
Dean for America

The linked article, while informative, has a little disinformation of its own-

the Clinton administration conducted a major nation-building intervention, on the average, every two years. The current administration, despite a strong disinclination to engage American armed forces in these activities, has launched two major such enterprises in a period of eighteen months.

All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name. The strong disinclination bit bit is pure malarkey, given the neocon urgings to invade Iraq during the Clinton years, and the simple fact that the decision to sell an Iraqi invasion was made the week after the unrelated 9/11 event.

Having punched the tarbaby, Bush's claims that he's winning and we can't pull him off now have a bit of a hollow sound... yeh, he may have a point, but we shouldn't let him entangle us further, given the arrogant lack of judgement that put us here in the first place...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name.

If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maluckey
Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Bush should have looked at that beforte he made a Campaign Promise that the US would not get into the business of Nation Building. I guess it was just a case of "Say Anything to get elected!"

"I promise the most ethical administration in our nation's history."

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name.

If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal.

If, hehe, if. I take it you don't know that Islam is the final true religion and God Allah will make that happen anyway, somewhat delayed, however, because of the invasion by the retard. I mean, don't you deserve to hear what you sound like.

 

[Vadatajs]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name.

If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal.

I agree, but the keyword in your statement is "if." It's also a very big IF considering that the key players in the adminstration can't agree on our mission there (powell, rice and rumsfeld). Re-electing bush on this gamble is like winning $50 on a scratch-off and then using every penny of it to buy more lottery tickets. Things might be better, but probably won't.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name.

If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal.

If, hehe, if. I take it you don't know that Islam is the final true religion and God Allah will make that happen anyway, somewhat delayed, however, because of the invasion by the retard. I mean, don't you deserve to hear what you sound like.

Well, they're 500 years behind the rest of us, so it didn't appear to be imminent. It only has a 33% probability, in my estimation, because, even given this incredible opportunity, they may be too emotionally and socially stunted to grasp it.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name.

If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal.

If, hehe, if. I take it you don't know that Islam is the final true religion and God Allah will make that happen anyway, somewhat delayed, however, because of the invasion by the retard. I mean, don't you deserve to hear what you sound like.

Well, they're 500 years behind the rest of us, so it didn't appear to be imminent. It only has a 33% probability, in my estimation, because, even given this incredible opportunity, they may be too emotionally and socially stunted to grasp it.

You never think of the possibility that it is you who is the primitive, do you. Of course a primitive wouldn't think of that.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
All the Clinton actions combined aren't a pimple on the @ss of the Iraqi blunder, in any terms you'd care to name.

If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal.

If, hehe, if. I take it you don't know that Islam is the final true religion and God Allah will make that happen anyway, somewhat delayed, however, because of the invasion by the retard. I mean, don't you deserve to hear what you sound like.

Well, they're 500 years behind the rest of us, so it didn't appear to be imminent. It only has a 33% probability, in my estimation, because, even given this incredible opportunity, they may be too emotionally and socially stunted to grasp it.

You never think of the possibility that it is you who is the primitive, do you. Of course a primitive wouldn't think of that.

You never think of the possibility that it is you who is the primate, do you. Of course a primate wouldn't think of that.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hero of Pellinor-

"If the change in Iraq eventually leads to a Renaissance in the Middle East, Clinton's legacy will look like a house of cards next to Bush's Taj Mahal."

Yeh, and if pigs had wings, they'd fly...

Our whole involvement in the area works on the principle of arrogant doublespeak. Even if Americans can't see it, mid-easterners certainly can... We don't want true democracies, we want hegemony, and will support any government that delivers it. I detested GHB's war to restore his Kuwaiti cronies to power. I detested his failure to wage war responsibly, occupy Iraq, do the right thing. When Saddam's regime failed to crumble, as hoped, I detested the ongoing starvation of the Iraqis and the Clintonites use of Saddam as the boogeyman. I detest this latest adventure based on lies even more.

Had we dropped the sanctions in the early 90's simply because they didn't work, because we'd lost the gambit of Saddam's downfall, Iraq would likely be experiencing that renaissance today. Yeh, sure, Saddam was a brutal tyrant, but that doesn't seem to bother us when such tyrants are our pals...

 

[Strk]

Iraq will not suddenly create some sort of renaissance in the Middle East. There may be a democracy in more than 2 middle eastern countries(Israel and Turkey being the only two, although 1 isn't Islamic and neither are Arabic, so those two are usually ignored anyways) one day, but not anytime soon. Personally, I would work on relations with Saudi Arabia(Islam as a whole isn't dangerous, but Wahhabism is) and Iran, both cover the two major types of Islam.

The only way I see democracy actually becoming a reality in the Middle East is if more countries' militaries are like Turkey(secular and protector of the state) and adopting a constitution similar to Germany.(can and will ban extremist political groups that the government feels are a threat to individual liberties)

 

[busmaster11]

People say Turkey is the only ME democracy. Aren't Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE all democracies? Kind of?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: maluckey
Howard Dean should look at this before he decides to pull all troops out of Iraq.

Bush should have looked at that beforte he made a Campaign Promise that the US would not get into the business of Nation Building. I guess it was just a case of "Say Anything to get elected!"

"I promise the most ethical administration in our nation's history."

Whoops!

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
People say Turkey is the only ME democracy. Aren't Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE all democracies? Kind of?

Democratic elements, but not a democracy.(ie: heads of state are still hereditary titles etc) Iran could become one if more pressure was put on them to remove the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader.(I don't see it happening, but it would be nice)

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: busmaster11
People say Turkey is the only ME democracy. Aren't Qatar, Bahrain, and UAE all democracies? Kind of?

Democratic elements, but not a democracy.(ie: heads of state are still hereditary titles etc) Iran could become one if more pressure was put on them to remove the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader.(I don't see it happening, but it would be nice)

Yeah, converting Iraq won't turn things around in the Middle East since, as you pointed out, Turkey has been a democracy for a while and it hasn't cascaded into the rest of the Middle East. But Iraq was a blockade to progression, not as much as Saudi Arabia, but a western-friendly oil-producing Iraq should diminish the power Saudi Arabia wields and isolates Iran, which already has a strong progressive movement, geographically which can't hurt.

 

[maluckey]

So nobody wants to comment on the content of the article? Deans position is fairly common in the Left side of things. Withdrawal and downsizing, according to the article, is not a good thing.

I'm so sorry to post a non-knee-jerk link. I couldn't find the rabid anti-Dean website this morning.

 

[Crazee]

Bush might want to remember this - "if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." - GWB 2000 campaign.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crazee
Bush might want to remember this - "if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that." - GWB 2000 campaign.

"The other day I was honored to be flanked by Colin Powell and General Norman Schwarzkopf, who stood by my side and agreed with me. They said we can--even though we're the strongest military, that if we don't do something quickly, we don't have a clearer vision of the military, if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that. I'm going to rebuild our military power. It's one of the major priorities of my administration." - Full quote from GWB in the debate

Also, Bush spoke specifically on the Iraq situation. Something about that he was a danger and that he'd like to get him(Saddam) out of there.

"If I think it's in our nation's strategic interest I'll commit troops." was said too

CkG

 

[Crazee]

You still didn't address his statement in that quote that he wasn't going to engage in nation building. But if that one doesn't meet your standard have a look at this one:

From the Presidential debate October 11, 2000:

Well -- I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war; that's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.

And I'm not -- I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea peninsula, not only to keep the peace on the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO. But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Crazee
You still didn't address his statement in that quote that he wasn't going to engage in nation building. But if that one doesn't meet your standard have a look at this one:

From the Presidential debate October 11, 2000:

Well -- I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not. Our military is meant to fight and win war; that's what it's meant to do. And when it gets overextended, morale drops.

And I'm not -- I strongly believe we need to have a military presence in the Korea peninsula, not only to keep the peace on the peninsula, but to keep regional stability. And I strongly believe we need to keep a presence in NATO. But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

Damn, that bastard was as full of sh!t as a Christmas turkey.

 

[LunarRay]

Moonbeam,

Damn, that bastard was as full of sh!t as a Christmas turkey.

Well... are you coming over for dinner... we're having turkey...