Joe Scarborough asked Democrats against the war about what he thought was a flaw or contradiction in their thinking, opposition to terrorism that has no teeth. How do Democrats who oppose the war deal with violence in the world? The question was fleshed out better by him probably but if this encapsulates the notion well enough to come to grips with this dilemma, how do you as pacifist Democrats answer this. I think it is one of the most important problems anybody in the majority portion of the party has to face. For example how do we address the fact that Saddam's gone? A Democrat will save people all over the world with military action provided there is no national interest involved, but where we have strategic and national interests it's a no no. Why? To me it is a deeply troubling and important question.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
I was surprised to see that Scarborough Country MSNBC ask a relevant question.
- Thread starter Moonbeam
- Start date
Who said I was a pacifist? Not me. My main complaint with Bush is that if he didn't have absolute proof that they had WMD then we could have waited a little longer so that we could have formed a real coalition aginst him.
He lied, big time lied. That alone is enough for me to be against him. I didn't like his tax cuts or his Enron connection and a lot of other things, but the lie about WMD's was the straw that broke the camel's back. To me the end does not justify the means.
He lied, big time lied. That alone is enough for me to be against him. I didn't like his tax cuts or his Enron connection and a lot of other things, but the lie about WMD's was the straw that broke the camel's back. To me the end does not justify the means.
Todd33
Diamond Member
The logic of that question would appear to depend on the connection between Iraq and terrorism, a connection that is tenuous at best. Show me a plan for a war that is likely to be effective against terrorism, and I will regard it differently than one that just adds fuel to the fire.
CycloWizard
Lifer
Dur, wrong thread.
DealMonkey
Lifer
I'm not sure about Dems specifically, however for many who are opposed to war in Iraq -- this sentiment does not mean we are total pacifists. I have no problem using our military when circumstances warrant it.
As usual though, Scarborough, like so many conservobots do, only see the world in bomb-don't bomb terms. Somehow he comes to the conclusion that if you're opposed to OIF, that you're also opposed to actively fighting terrorism? That's a very simple-minded thought process at work. Which doesn't surprise me given how much I've watched Scarborough Country and how many times I've rolled my eyes at the stupid crap coming out of Joe's mouth.
"Violence in the world" is a cause-and-effect phenomena.
Getting at the root of the cause is the answer. What the Bush administration has done--and is doing will not solve the problem--just the opposite. Look at Najaf-- that mistake will reforce bad will (and continued violence) for decades to come.
It takes neither a democrat nor a republican--it takes a consistently sane foreign policy.
Pakistan is an example:
---
Published on Monday, August 9, 2004 by the Guardian / United Kingdom
Without a War on Poverty, We Will Never Defeat Terror
Dictatorship and Religious Extremism are fueled by Gross Inequality
by Benazir Bhutto
While the world focuses on the war against terror, the war against poverty slides on to the backburner. Since the bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001, three developments have become decisive on a global scale. The first is the fight to root out militants, the second is the political rise of those on the religious margins and the third is the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Pakistan is a frontline state in the war against terrorism. Most of the leading terrorists have been arrested in Pakistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, once described as the CEO of al-Qaida, was arrested in Rawalpindi. Other important leaders continue to be caught in dribs and drabs every six months, including Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian, who was arrested in the Pakistani city of Gujrat last month.
This is good and bad news for Islamabad's military ruler. The positive part is that General Pervez Musharraf gets to play good cop and earn Washington's pleasure to continue his dictatorship. The bad part is that eyebrows are raised as to why leading al-Qaida militants found it necessary to hide in a land run by Washington's "key ally" in the war against terror.
Unfortunately for Pakistan, assassinations and suicide bombings have also been increasing domestically. Scores of Pakistanis and many foreigners have been killed. Many political leaders have been gunned down in the streets - from Rawalpindi in the north to Karachi in the south.
None of the assassins has been arrested. Instead, public attention has been focused on five apparent assassination attempts against high-profile targets that have taken place since last December: two attacks on Gen Musharraf, and one each on the Karachi corps commander, the prime minister-designate, Shaukat Aziz, and the Baluchistan chief minister.
While the regime insists these were genuine assassination attempts, their pattern suggests something different. At most, they seem to have been attempts to frighten the targets. At worst, if the cynics are to be believed, the attacks were stage-managed for external consumption.
For example, in each case, the bombers used low intensity explosives. None of the people hurt or killed was of political value - though they were, of course, of personal and national value. These included innocent people escorting the apparent targets. The main targets escaped without a scratch. While it is welcome that they survived, the larger issue needs resolving.
The drivers in the corps commander's and prime minister-designate's cars were killed, but the other passengers escaped unscathed. It is difficult to believe that bombers would repeatedly use low-intensity explosives so that only one occupant of the car being attacked - or a person outside the car - would die. A public commission into these attacks is needed.
The second crucial development since September 11 2001 has been the rise of religious extremists. There appear to be groups in both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds who believe that a clash of civilizations is needed for religious reasons. The Christian fundamentalists believe that Christ will be resurrected once the people of the Jewish faith are resettled on the banks of the Euphrates. The Muslim extremists believe that the Mahdi will arrive when the battle between Muslims and non-Muslims intensifies.
This political scenario is threatening to undo the entire global social fabric built since the end of the second world war - one based on the tolerance between different faiths, races, genders and cultures. A clash of civilizations can lead to Armageddon, where there will be no winners on earth. But perhaps the religious extremists are not searching for winners on earth.
The challenge for the world community is to emphasize values of tolerance, moderation and inter-faith understanding, on which rest the pillars of a less violent world. However, the bombing of the World Trade Center and the events in Iraq have made that more difficult. The former led to suspicion against Muslims and a loss of civil liberties; the latter to a counter-suspicion from Muslims as to the real purposes of the war. The inability to find weapons of mass destruction and the Abu Ghraib abuses undermined the reasons given for the Iraq war.
While global attention is focused on terrorism, the crisis of poverty is effectively disregarded. Today, big business seems to be in the driving seat. One recent report found that while 20 years ago CEOs made an average of 40 times more than factory workers, last year it was 400 times more, and is now climbing to a multiple of 500.
This staggering rise in the fortunes of those on top, while those below suffer, is a festering sore that has the potential to erupt. The recent Indian elections showed that a stock-market economy alone could not make India shine. The Indian electorate went against all predictions, as peasants, laborers and the middle classes voted for change. Similarly, in Pakistan the talk of stock market rises and foreign exchange increases hides a more troubling picture. This is one of increasing poverty, hunger, misery and frustration. The numbers of young people killing themselves because of hunger was 1,200 in six months. These are the officially recorded figures - the real figures are believed to be much higher.
In Pakistan, the average income has been shrinking. The cost of living is rising sharply. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the ordinary citizen to pay fat utility bills and buy the basic necessities of life. The Pakistan Economic Survey admits that poverty has increased since democracy was derailed in 1996. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate. The war against terrorism is primarily perceived as a war based on the use of force. However, economics has its own force, as does the desperation of families who cannot feed themselves. A more stable world depends on the ability to use force when necessary - and to seek political solutions when possible. After all, force is the prelude to achieving a more favorable negotiating position in a political settlement.
Militancy and greed cannot become the defining images of a new century that began with much hope. As the body count rises in Iraq, as a leading NGO pulls out of Afghanistan and as a suicide attack takes place against Pakistan's prime minister designate, the time has come to rethink. By returning to the values of democracy, the will of the people, broad-based government and building institutions that can respond to the people, the social malaise can be addressed.
The neglect of rising poverty against the background of religious extremism can only complicate an already difficult world situation.
· Benazir Bhutto is chairperson of the Pakistan People's party and a former prime minister of Pakistan
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
Getting at the root of the cause is the answer. What the Bush administration has done--and is doing will not solve the problem--just the opposite. Look at Najaf-- that mistake will reforce bad will (and continued violence) for decades to come.
It takes neither a democrat nor a republican--it takes a consistently sane foreign policy.
Pakistan is an example:
---
Published on Monday, August 9, 2004 by the Guardian / United Kingdom
Without a War on Poverty, We Will Never Defeat Terror
Dictatorship and Religious Extremism are fueled by Gross Inequality
by Benazir Bhutto
While the world focuses on the war against terror, the war against poverty slides on to the backburner. Since the bombing of the World Trade Center in 2001, three developments have become decisive on a global scale. The first is the fight to root out militants, the second is the political rise of those on the religious margins and the third is the growing gap between the rich and the poor.
Pakistan is a frontline state in the war against terrorism. Most of the leading terrorists have been arrested in Pakistan. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, once described as the CEO of al-Qaida, was arrested in Rawalpindi. Other important leaders continue to be caught in dribs and drabs every six months, including Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian, who was arrested in the Pakistani city of Gujrat last month.
This is good and bad news for Islamabad's military ruler. The positive part is that General Pervez Musharraf gets to play good cop and earn Washington's pleasure to continue his dictatorship. The bad part is that eyebrows are raised as to why leading al-Qaida militants found it necessary to hide in a land run by Washington's "key ally" in the war against terror.
Unfortunately for Pakistan, assassinations and suicide bombings have also been increasing domestically. Scores of Pakistanis and many foreigners have been killed. Many political leaders have been gunned down in the streets - from Rawalpindi in the north to Karachi in the south.
None of the assassins has been arrested. Instead, public attention has been focused on five apparent assassination attempts against high-profile targets that have taken place since last December: two attacks on Gen Musharraf, and one each on the Karachi corps commander, the prime minister-designate, Shaukat Aziz, and the Baluchistan chief minister.
While the regime insists these were genuine assassination attempts, their pattern suggests something different. At most, they seem to have been attempts to frighten the targets. At worst, if the cynics are to be believed, the attacks were stage-managed for external consumption.
For example, in each case, the bombers used low intensity explosives. None of the people hurt or killed was of political value - though they were, of course, of personal and national value. These included innocent people escorting the apparent targets. The main targets escaped without a scratch. While it is welcome that they survived, the larger issue needs resolving.
The drivers in the corps commander's and prime minister-designate's cars were killed, but the other passengers escaped unscathed. It is difficult to believe that bombers would repeatedly use low-intensity explosives so that only one occupant of the car being attacked - or a person outside the car - would die. A public commission into these attacks is needed.
The second crucial development since September 11 2001 has been the rise of religious extremists. There appear to be groups in both the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds who believe that a clash of civilizations is needed for religious reasons. The Christian fundamentalists believe that Christ will be resurrected once the people of the Jewish faith are resettled on the banks of the Euphrates. The Muslim extremists believe that the Mahdi will arrive when the battle between Muslims and non-Muslims intensifies.
This political scenario is threatening to undo the entire global social fabric built since the end of the second world war - one based on the tolerance between different faiths, races, genders and cultures. A clash of civilizations can lead to Armageddon, where there will be no winners on earth. But perhaps the religious extremists are not searching for winners on earth.
The challenge for the world community is to emphasize values of tolerance, moderation and inter-faith understanding, on which rest the pillars of a less violent world. However, the bombing of the World Trade Center and the events in Iraq have made that more difficult. The former led to suspicion against Muslims and a loss of civil liberties; the latter to a counter-suspicion from Muslims as to the real purposes of the war. The inability to find weapons of mass destruction and the Abu Ghraib abuses undermined the reasons given for the Iraq war.
While global attention is focused on terrorism, the crisis of poverty is effectively disregarded. Today, big business seems to be in the driving seat. One recent report found that while 20 years ago CEOs made an average of 40 times more than factory workers, last year it was 400 times more, and is now climbing to a multiple of 500.
This staggering rise in the fortunes of those on top, while those below suffer, is a festering sore that has the potential to erupt. The recent Indian elections showed that a stock-market economy alone could not make India shine. The Indian electorate went against all predictions, as peasants, laborers and the middle classes voted for change. Similarly, in Pakistan the talk of stock market rises and foreign exchange increases hides a more troubling picture. This is one of increasing poverty, hunger, misery and frustration. The numbers of young people killing themselves because of hunger was 1,200 in six months. These are the officially recorded figures - the real figures are believed to be much higher.
In Pakistan, the average income has been shrinking. The cost of living is rising sharply. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the ordinary citizen to pay fat utility bills and buy the basic necessities of life. The Pakistan Economic Survey admits that poverty has increased since democracy was derailed in 1996. The gap between the rich and the poor is growing at an alarming rate. The war against terrorism is primarily perceived as a war based on the use of force. However, economics has its own force, as does the desperation of families who cannot feed themselves. A more stable world depends on the ability to use force when necessary - and to seek political solutions when possible. After all, force is the prelude to achieving a more favorable negotiating position in a political settlement.
Militancy and greed cannot become the defining images of a new century that began with much hope. As the body count rises in Iraq, as a leading NGO pulls out of Afghanistan and as a suicide attack takes place against Pakistan's prime minister designate, the time has come to rethink. By returning to the values of democracy, the will of the people, broad-based government and building institutions that can respond to the people, the social malaise can be addressed.
The neglect of rising poverty against the background of religious extremism can only complicate an already difficult world situation.
· Benazir Bhutto is chairperson of the Pakistan People's party and a former prime minister of Pakistan
© Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004
This is the right way to provoke continued violence and terrorism. The Bush way.
Published in the September 13, 2004 issue of The Nation
Bring Najaf to New York
by Naomi Klein
I've been in New York a week now, watching the city prepare for the Republican National Convention and the accompanying protests. Much is predictable: tabloid hysteria about an anarchist siege; cops showing off their new crowd-control toys; fierce debates about whether the demonstrations will hurt the Republicans or inadvertently help them.
What surprises me is what isn't here: Najaf. It's nowhere to be found. Every day, US bombs and tanks move closer to the sacred Imam Ali Shrine, reportedly damaging outer walls and sending shrapnel flying into the courtyard; every day, children are killed in their homes as US soldiers inflict collective punishment on the holy city; every day, more bodies are disturbed as US Marines stomp through the Valley of Peace cemetery, their boots slipping into graves as they use tombstones for cover.
Sure, the fighting in Najaf makes the news, but not in any way connected to the election. Instead it's relegated to the status of a faraway intractable ethnic conflict, like Afghanistan, Sudan or Palestine. Even within the antiwar movement, the events in Najaf are barely visible. The "handover" has worked: Iraq is becoming somebody else's problem. It's true that war is at the center of the election campaign--just not the one in Iraq. The talk is all of what happened on Swift Boats thirty-five years ago, not of the cannons being fired from US AC-130 gunships this week.
But while Vietnam has taken up far too much space in this campaign already, I find myself thinking about the words of Vietnam veteran and novelist Tim O'Brien. In an interview for the 1980 documentary Vietnam: The 10,000 Day War, O'Brien said, "My time in Vietnam is a memory of ignorance and I mean utter ignorance. I didn't know the language. I couldn't communicate with the Vietnamese except in pidgin English. I knew nothing about the culture of Vietnam. I knew nothing about the religion, religions. I knew nothing about the village community. I knew nothing about the aims of the people, whether they were for the war or against the war.... No knowledge of what the enemy was after.... and I compensated for that ignorance in a whole bunch of ways, some evil ways. Blowing things up, burning huts as a frustration of being ignorant and not knowing where the enemy was."
He could have been talking about Iraq today. When a foreign army invades a country about which it knows virtually nothing, there is plenty of deliberate brutality, but there is also the unintended barbarism of blind ignorance. It starts with cultural and religious slights: soldiers storming into a home without giving women a chance to cover their heads; army boots traipsing through mosques that have never been touched by the soles of shoes; a misunderstood hand signal at a checkpoint with deadly consequences.
And now Najaf. It's not just that sacred burial sites are being desecrated with fresh blood; it's that Americans appear unaware of the depths of this offense, and the repercussions it will have for decades to come. The Imam Ali Shrine is not a run-of-the-mill holy site; it's the Shiite equivalent of the Sistine Chapel. Najaf is not just another Iraqi city; it is the city of the dead, where the cemeteries go on forever, a place so sacred that every devout Shiite dreams of being buried there. And Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers are not just another group of generic terrorists out to kill Americans; their opposition to the occupation represents the overwhelmingly mainstream sentiment in Iraq. Yes, if elected Sadr would try to turn Iraq into a theocracy like Iran, but for now his demands are for direct elections and an end to foreign occupation.
Compare O'Brien's humility with the cockiness expressed by Glen Butler, a major in the Marines whose August 23 New York Times op-ed reads as if it were ghostwritten by Karl Rove. Butler brags that though he has been in Iraq for just over a month, he "know a bit about the caliph, about the five pillars and about Allah." He goes on to explain that by swooping low over Najaf's cemeteries, he is not inflaming anti-American hatred in the Arab world but "attacking the source of the threat." The helicopter pilot blithely dismisses his enemies as foreign fighters and ex-Baathists and "a few frustrated Iraqis who worry about Wal-Mart culture infringing on their neighborhood."
It's hard to know where to begin. The Mahdi Army that Butler is attacking is made up of Iraqi citizens, not foreigners. They are not Baathists; they were the most oppressed under Saddam's regime and cheered his overthrow. And they aren't worried that Wal-Mart is taking over their neighborhood; they are enraged that they still lack electricity and sewage treatment despite the billions pledged for reconstruction.
Before Sadr's supporters began their uprising, they made their demands for elections and an end to occupation through sermons, peaceful protests and newspaper articles. US forces responded by shutting down their newspapers, firing on their demonstrations and bombing their neighborhoods. It was only then that Sadr went to war against the occupation. And every round fired out of Butler's helicopter doesn't make Des Moines and Santa Monica safer, as he claims. It makes the Mahdi Army stronger.
As I write this, days before the Republican convention, the plan for the demonstration seems to be to express general outrage about Iraq, to say "no to war" and "no to the Bush agenda." This is an important message, but it's not enough. We also need to hear specific demands to end the disastrous siege on Najaf, and unequivocal support for Iraqis who are desperate for democracy and an end to occupation.
United for Peace and Justice states that "there are two key moments this year when people throughout the United States will have the opportunity to send a resounding message of opposition to the Bush Agenda: November 2, election day, and August 29, in New York City." Sadly, this isn't the case: There is no chance for Bush's war agenda to be clearly rejected on Election Day, because John Kerry is promising to continue, and even strengthen, the military occupation of Iraq. That means there is only one chance for Americans to express their wholehearted rejection of the ongoing war on Iraq: in the streets outside the Republican National Convention. It's time to bring Najaf to New York.
Published in the September 13, 2004 issue of The Nation
Bring Najaf to New York
by Naomi Klein
I've been in New York a week now, watching the city prepare for the Republican National Convention and the accompanying protests. Much is predictable: tabloid hysteria about an anarchist siege; cops showing off their new crowd-control toys; fierce debates about whether the demonstrations will hurt the Republicans or inadvertently help them.
What surprises me is what isn't here: Najaf. It's nowhere to be found. Every day, US bombs and tanks move closer to the sacred Imam Ali Shrine, reportedly damaging outer walls and sending shrapnel flying into the courtyard; every day, children are killed in their homes as US soldiers inflict collective punishment on the holy city; every day, more bodies are disturbed as US Marines stomp through the Valley of Peace cemetery, their boots slipping into graves as they use tombstones for cover.
Sure, the fighting in Najaf makes the news, but not in any way connected to the election. Instead it's relegated to the status of a faraway intractable ethnic conflict, like Afghanistan, Sudan or Palestine. Even within the antiwar movement, the events in Najaf are barely visible. The "handover" has worked: Iraq is becoming somebody else's problem. It's true that war is at the center of the election campaign--just not the one in Iraq. The talk is all of what happened on Swift Boats thirty-five years ago, not of the cannons being fired from US AC-130 gunships this week.
But while Vietnam has taken up far too much space in this campaign already, I find myself thinking about the words of Vietnam veteran and novelist Tim O'Brien. In an interview for the 1980 documentary Vietnam: The 10,000 Day War, O'Brien said, "My time in Vietnam is a memory of ignorance and I mean utter ignorance. I didn't know the language. I couldn't communicate with the Vietnamese except in pidgin English. I knew nothing about the culture of Vietnam. I knew nothing about the religion, religions. I knew nothing about the village community. I knew nothing about the aims of the people, whether they were for the war or against the war.... No knowledge of what the enemy was after.... and I compensated for that ignorance in a whole bunch of ways, some evil ways. Blowing things up, burning huts as a frustration of being ignorant and not knowing where the enemy was."
He could have been talking about Iraq today. When a foreign army invades a country about which it knows virtually nothing, there is plenty of deliberate brutality, but there is also the unintended barbarism of blind ignorance. It starts with cultural and religious slights: soldiers storming into a home without giving women a chance to cover their heads; army boots traipsing through mosques that have never been touched by the soles of shoes; a misunderstood hand signal at a checkpoint with deadly consequences.
And now Najaf. It's not just that sacred burial sites are being desecrated with fresh blood; it's that Americans appear unaware of the depths of this offense, and the repercussions it will have for decades to come. The Imam Ali Shrine is not a run-of-the-mill holy site; it's the Shiite equivalent of the Sistine Chapel. Najaf is not just another Iraqi city; it is the city of the dead, where the cemeteries go on forever, a place so sacred that every devout Shiite dreams of being buried there. And Muqtada al-Sadr and his followers are not just another group of generic terrorists out to kill Americans; their opposition to the occupation represents the overwhelmingly mainstream sentiment in Iraq. Yes, if elected Sadr would try to turn Iraq into a theocracy like Iran, but for now his demands are for direct elections and an end to foreign occupation.
Compare O'Brien's humility with the cockiness expressed by Glen Butler, a major in the Marines whose August 23 New York Times op-ed reads as if it were ghostwritten by Karl Rove. Butler brags that though he has been in Iraq for just over a month, he "know
It's hard to know where to begin. The Mahdi Army that Butler is attacking is made up of Iraqi citizens, not foreigners. They are not Baathists; they were the most oppressed under Saddam's regime and cheered his overthrow. And they aren't worried that Wal-Mart is taking over their neighborhood; they are enraged that they still lack electricity and sewage treatment despite the billions pledged for reconstruction.
Before Sadr's supporters began their uprising, they made their demands for elections and an end to occupation through sermons, peaceful protests and newspaper articles. US forces responded by shutting down their newspapers, firing on their demonstrations and bombing their neighborhoods. It was only then that Sadr went to war against the occupation. And every round fired out of Butler's helicopter doesn't make Des Moines and Santa Monica safer, as he claims. It makes the Mahdi Army stronger.
As I write this, days before the Republican convention, the plan for the demonstration seems to be to express general outrage about Iraq, to say "no to war" and "no to the Bush agenda." This is an important message, but it's not enough. We also need to hear specific demands to end the disastrous siege on Najaf, and unequivocal support for Iraqis who are desperate for democracy and an end to occupation.
United for Peace and Justice states that "there are two key moments this year when people throughout the United States will have the opportunity to send a resounding message of opposition to the Bush Agenda: November 2, election day, and August 29, in New York City." Sadly, this isn't the case: There is no chance for Bush's war agenda to be clearly rejected on Election Day, because John Kerry is promising to continue, and even strengthen, the military occupation of Iraq. That means there is only one chance for Americans to express their wholehearted rejection of the ongoing war on Iraq: in the streets outside the Republican National Convention. It's time to bring Najaf to New York.
Thanks, fjord, for the informative posts. I think they make great posts but don't answer the question as to why democrats have little problem defending people with military force so long as there are no national interests. I think it's something that requires a lot of thought.
DM, I don't care that Joe is a republican because I think his question is challenging and has been a central one to my mind for a long time.
I opposed the war in Iraq but not in Yugoslavia. I also wanted Saddam removed. There appear to be inconsistencies in that picture.
DM, I don't care that Joe is a republican because I think his question is challenging and has been a central one to my mind for a long time.
I opposed the war in Iraq but not in Yugoslavia. I also wanted Saddam removed. There appear to be inconsistencies in that picture.
Todd33
Diamond Member
If there was no 911 and Bush and team didn't scare us with WMDs and AQ links, no one would have supported an invasion. Emotion and fear was exploited. Democrats angry with being mislead are more vocal than the ones who stand behind their president.
In general not many people are pure pacifist and on the other side there are not many people who want to preemptively invade nations which pose no threat to the US.
In general not many people are pure pacifist and on the other side there are not many people who want to preemptively invade nations which pose no threat to the US.
CycloWizard
Lifer
Would your whole world come crashing down if we did, in fact, find WMD in Iraq? Again, Kerry has stated numerous times that he would still have supported the war, even knowing what he does today. The whole 'Bush's goal in life has always been to invade Iraq because they tried to kill his daddy' routine has been beat to death, set on fire, swept up, and put out with the trash.
Joe Scarborough doesn't realize that the war against Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaida. Of course now that the road block named Saddam is out of Iraq it seems that Al Qaida has sown it's seeds and has set it's roots there. What we should of been doing to fight this "War On Terror" was to of continued our work in Afghanistan untill we were done. The war in Iraq is not and has never been part of the "War On Terror" to begin with and if anything what is happening in Iraq should be called "Bush's War On Saddam".
OneOfTheseDays
Diamond Member
The doctrine of preemptive striking is EXTREMELY dangerous. Something Democrats realize is that full scale invasion and war should really be the LAST option. Nobody wins wars, people die and suffer.
I disagree that the fight against terrorism is a "war" at all. We are fighting something we cannot ever hope to defeat, we won't defeat terrorism because it's an impossible battle. We can cripple their networks, take away their funding, and limit their chances of pulling off another 9/11. But what can we do to stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself/herself up in the middle of Time Square? We have to make our world an unsafe place for terrorists to live in, not the other way around.
I disagree that the fight against terrorism is a "war" at all. We are fighting something we cannot ever hope to defeat, we won't defeat terrorism because it's an impossible battle. We can cripple their networks, take away their funding, and limit their chances of pulling off another 9/11. But what can we do to stop a suicide bomber from blowing himself/herself up in the middle of Time Square? We have to make our world an unsafe place for terrorists to live in, not the other way around.
I supported our intervention in Yugoslavia becuase I thought we could save a lot of innocent lives with minimal casualties for ourselves, and without promoting further instability there. It was both the right thing to do AND feasible.
I opposed Iraq because,as Powell warned, if we broke it we'd own it. It would also be the right thing to do to oust Kin Il Jong from North Korea, but the cost and danger are way too high. It is NOT both the right thing to do AND feasible.
I support intervention in Burundi and Sudan because, again, I think we could save a lot of innocent lives with minimal casualties for ourselves. There is little danger in either place of making things worse.
Iraq was as strategically wrong as Vietnam was. Yugoslavia was as morally correct, on balance, as Korea was.
If there are inconsistencies in my particular picture, Moonie, please let me know.
When somebody shows a working relationship between the Iraqi Baathist regime and anti-American terrorists, the question will become valid. Until that time, it presumes facts not in evidence, and is a basic non-sequiter...
If pigs had wings, would they fly?
If chickens had teeth, would they chew?
If pigs had wings, would they fly?
If chickens had teeth, would they chew?
OneOfTheseDays
Diamond Member
Hey I don't pretend to have all the answers. All I know is that this administration is going in the wrong direction.
CycloWizard
Lifer
Unfortunately, that's not true. I'm going to post another topic on it with the facts, since everyone here wants to focus on this issue.
DealMonkey
Lifer
I guess Moonie, I don't understand Joe's question (or they way you're paraphrasing it). Again, look at the part I bolded. Perhaps you can clarify for me: Is Joe asking how Democrats who opposed the war in Iraq can fight a war on terror if they're afraid to put military options on the table?
Again, I dislike the equating of War on Iraq with War on Terror.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
