-
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.
When did Republicans start interesting themselves in the welfare of other countries?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
as much as i've agreed with you in the past - and should continue to - i can't agree here.
the mess in iraq and the mess in serbia were both a result of massive u.n. failure. i would
not have supported the iraq campaign if i had any confidence that the u.n. had the means,
cajones, and support to wrench saddam and that whole ba'ath superstructure out, root and
all.
serbia was an even more profound logistics disaster because there the u.n. bureacracy
was put on the ground to test their feet and their failure here led directly to the deaths of
people whom they were protecting. they were both grave human right catastrophes and
both needed intervention from outside powers to bring to an end.
I think we'd see better, more consistent foreign policy results in determining when and where to "fix things" abroad if the burden and responsibility to do so was placed solely in the hands of Congress. You would then have the voice of the people making the call. Then you wouldn't need to worry about the possibility a couple of guys in suits with screwy agendas doing things for all the wrong reasons.
To be clear, the executive should always be authorized to handle clear-cut defensive situations that require immediate, decisive action. But when the nation isn't under dire peril (i.e. for everything else) the House and Senate ought to decide when and where we go.
I believe then we'd see better reasoning behind intiating these actions and we'd get real commitment to the adventures we decide to embark upon since citizens will likely be more united around the cause. The issue of a military draft to support these operations would probably not even arise because the actions will likely have popular support and moreover real support from the international crowd, too.
For those of you who may point out that's how it was originally designed....I know.
To be clear, the executive should always be authorized to handle clear-cut defensive situations that require immediate, decisive action. But when the nation isn't under dire peril (i.e. for everything else) the House and Senate ought to decide when and where we go.
I believe then we'd see better reasoning behind intiating these actions and we'd get real commitment to the adventures we decide to embark upon since citizens will likely be more united around the cause. The issue of a military draft to support these operations would probably not even arise because the actions will likely have popular support and moreover real support from the international crowd, too.
For those of you who may point out that's how it was originally designed....I know.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
You guys need to quote more selectively - there is a lot of wasted space in this thread.
IMO the justification for OIF is indicative of the shift toward neoconservatism, and it is indeed a major departure from traditional Republican values. Scty Rumsfeld and President Bush characterized OIF as an act of "anticipatory self-defense," which I see as a rather disingenuous and self-serving euphemism for an offensive attack, since there was and is no evidence Iraq posed any imminent threat to the United States.
This policy shift is paralleled by the Republican move away from the tradtionally Republican value of fiscal conservatism, toward huge amounts of deficit spending. Reagan was the pioneer in this area, though GWB has taken it to new heights. I find it fascinating that many Republicans still harp on Democrats for their "tax-and-spend policies" when, modernly, the Republican party are the ones who have spent us into vast deficits. Today, when Social Security and Medicare are removed from the equation, the federal government spends $1.50 for each dollar it takes in, in spite of the fact that the executive and legislative branches are dominated by Republicans. What a world!
IMO the justification for OIF is indicative of the shift toward neoconservatism, and it is indeed a major departure from traditional Republican values. Scty Rumsfeld and President Bush characterized OIF as an act of "anticipatory self-defense," which I see as a rather disingenuous and self-serving euphemism for an offensive attack, since there was and is no evidence Iraq posed any imminent threat to the United States.
This policy shift is paralleled by the Republican move away from the tradtionally Republican value of fiscal conservatism, toward huge amounts of deficit spending. Reagan was the pioneer in this area, though GWB has taken it to new heights. I find it fascinating that many Republicans still harp on Democrats for their "tax-and-spend policies" when, modernly, the Republican party are the ones who have spent us into vast deficits. Today, when Social Security and Medicare are removed from the equation, the federal government spends $1.50 for each dollar it takes in, in spite of the fact that the executive and legislative branches are dominated by Republicans. What a world!
Infohawk:
Republicans have a long history of helping folks who are "down".
Let's see:
1. Boeing;
2. Chrysler;
3. The airlines;
4. Halliburton (not technically down, but they would have a missed some major profits without this war);
5. The drug companies and insurance industry.
Just a short list among many possibilities.
The baloney about ridding the world of a cruel dictator is amusing at best. We usually support the cruel dictators.
-Robert
Republicans have a long history of helping folks who are "down".
Let's see:
1. Boeing;
2. Chrysler;
3. The airlines;
4. Halliburton (not technically down, but they would have a missed some major profits without this war);
5. The drug companies and insurance industry.
Just a short list among many possibilities.
The baloney about ridding the world of a cruel dictator is amusing at best. We usually support the cruel dictators.
-Robert
How many times do you need to be schooled on 687? I find it utterley amazing that before I clearly pointed out Saddam was in violation of at least two UN resolutions that called for the use of force you never wanted to mention it.
Now you are trying to twist the resolution around and say it doesnt have anythign to do with with the mistreatment of people?
Ok but it clearly has somethign to do with weapon inspection compliance. Something Saddam was in bad shape considering he and his party kicked out the UN in Dec of 1998. That put him in direct violation of the cease fire agreement and thus any use of force is justified.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
That's all fine and dandy but that wasn't the reason the Dub used to garner support from the American Public for his excellent adventure in Iraq. If he had promoted that as justification instead of non existent vast quanties of WMDs I seriously doubt he would have had the support he needed.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
Of course, since the UN were the ones who passed the resolution, it was incumbent on them to use force, if they felt it was justified, and they elected not to. Also, Saddam Hussein ultimately did allow weapons inspectors unfettered access in the winter of 2002/2003, and they concluded there was no active WMD program, notwithstanding the thin and misleading intel we presented to the UN in an effort to justify the use of force.
I believe it was when Bush was tanking in the polls, and 9/11 opened the gates of heaven. "Get me out of the taken and into a war. The people always rally behind the Pres in war." Now we have thousands of casualties so Bush can hope to serve two terms. WMD was determined to be the only argument that would sell, remember, just like Red said. There would have been no war on the basis of 'save the
Iraqi people.' Most Republicans and lots of Democrats didn't give a fig about the Iraqi people.
Out of goodwill? I wouldnt go so far as to say us invading Iraq was out of goodwill. But nice play on words.
I would say it was out of neccesity and in the aftermath helping the people of Iraq getting a democratic govt setup is a bonus.
Actually he still interferred with the inspection process and if you think ater 4 years of not having any inspections the UN teams can simply make a couple of sweeps and call it clear. You are being a little naive.
The UN or more specifically Russia and France had other reasons to object to fulfilling their agreements by signing 1441, 687, and 678. They had under the table oil deals that provided a nice chunk of change. You should read the NY times article on the money they found about a year ago. About 600 million in US currency that should not have been there but was through many underhanded deals in Europe.
I think your position is how most convervatives think. Therefore I find it funny when conservatives attempt to claim that those that oppose the war don't care about Iraqis. More conservatives should be honest, like you, about their reasons for going into the war and supporting the war.
Saddam NEVER kicked the UN out of Iraq.
NEVER.
Clinton had them removed before he launched the cruise missile attacks.
Also, the inspections were underway again and in 2003 were not finding anything of substance. They had found some proof that WMDs had been destroyed but not full proof yet. Also, they were allowed access to any site requested.
687 dealt with the WMDs and the programs related to the WMDs. It was NEVER about freeing the people or keeping Saddam from attacking his own people as charrison was trying to imply.
Why were the inspectors pulled out?
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
Interesting points. Why would you say there was a "necessity" to attack Iraq? It can't be for our own national defense, can it? I find that quite a stretch.
My recollection (which could certainly be faulty) was that SH ultimately allowed completely unfettered inspection access in early 2003, but that President Bush kept stepping up his demands to stave off war, finally settling on the proposition that SH would have to surrender peacefully, among other things.
I agree with you about the under-the-table oil deals, and by all appearances France was paying not only with cash but with weapons. On the other hand, we were allowing the embargo to be violated too - we knew for several years this was occurring - and I imagine we did so at least partially to avoid further negative press from the humanitarian impact of the embargo.
The upshot of all this is that there was not any apparent urgency to going to war with Iraq, and instead we either lied, or were willfully ignorant, about laughably shoddy intel that we said tended to show plans for a nuclear program, and ongoing WMD programs. We ran that up the flagpole (by presenting it to the UN) and the world community substantially failed to salute.
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
Tough to know for sure, but I tend to doubt it. The White House would have had to produce much clearer evidence tying Iraq to 9/11 or other known acts of terrorism. They did argue a connection to 9/11 existed, a position they have since retreated from, but never provided much in the way of concrete proof.
It does seem to me that President Bush struck while the iron was (relatively) hot, and that now, 1 1/2 more years from 9/11, he would have encountered much greater resistance from the public and Congress to a major military action like OIF. Even at the time OIF was touching off, it was hard to justify why war in Iraq was so urgent, when North Korea was openly developing nuclear weapons and threatening to use them, a situation which, we were told, was a "diplomatic matter."
Now Moonbeam that's very inconsiderate of you. No one should have to go it alone. Chenney should have gone, too.
Legislation should exist to send the first born sons of all senators and representatives off to war as infantry whenever battle is seen. That way we'd be certain any military action was necessary and just.
I think if there isn't sufficent reason to conduct a military operation then one shouldn't be launched.
Iraq was also a war in search of a cause. Using the fearful WMD angle was the only way to make invasion palatable since there was no link to 9/11, no link to al-qaeda and Iraq wasn't even threatening its neighbors let alone us. Iraq wasn't in compliance with some UN inspection mandates but it was doing that before Bush even took office and he didn't care about it until well after 9/11.
Fact is Bush lied to us about the reasons. He invaded because he wanted regime change (and to create all of the entrepreneurial(sp?) opportunities that action would bring). We weren't even told the truth about the costs, commitment or duration.
It's done now and I hope things turn out well for Iraqis in the end but we've got to stop electing presidents who are obsessed with using our military to mess around abroad and have no principled reasons for doing so.
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
