Originally posted by bbarrDo you mean unilateral as in by ourselves or do you mean unilateral as without France and Germany and the UN?
General Wesley Clark is hardly a Clinton clone, and it seems a stretch to say that the former Commander of all U.S. forces in Latin America ('96-'97) and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe lacks the fortitude to properly handle the defense of the U.S. Bush's unilateral policies, and his fondness for ultimatums has actually harmed the U.S. in its 'War ...[text shortened]... ons; Bush could do worse than trying to emulate this Democrat on matters of warfare and defense.
Because if you mean by ourselves then you are lying, but if you mean (in a weird liberal stretch of the word) unilateral to mean without France and Germany and the UN then how does not having their support undermine our policies. France has a long standing tradition of helping Saddam and stand to lose Billions in loans to Iraq now. The UN has many countries within it that are antagonistic to the US, why should we let them be the final arbiter of our foriegn policy.
As for squandering international sympathy for the victims of 9-11, they have the sympathy and support of the entire country.
When the dust settles in a year or two and Iraq is a stable democracy and a symbol for the region and the US begins to remove its troops and the rest of the world sees that our intentions were ALWAYS what Bush said and the world is a safer place and money from Saddam is no longer going to suicide bombers and there is no more terrorist training going on in Iraq and the WMD programs are no longer in place THEN the world will realize who had the foresight, the vision of the long road to peace the persistance to get there and the will to face down and bring to justice the evil doers in the world.
Dean would scuttle this effort and bring ruin to all the hard efforts and lives spent in its pursuit.
Originally posted by gregofthewebDo you really fail to see the distinction there? I know Republicans aren't very good at such subtleties, but asking a question is not the same as making an accusation. Asking whether the Bush administration had some form of prior warning, or intelligence, from the Saudis which went unheeded is a legitimate question. Your sources make clear that Dean indicated he didn't know if there was any substance to the the rumors which were swirling around at the time.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2092515/#ContinueArticle
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7853
Your naiveté in thinking that Iraq will suddenly become a successful democracy just because we will it to is truly apalling. We ousted Mossadegh from Iran in the 50's in a CIA sponsored coup and installed the shah, whom we hoped would more to our liking, and we ended up creating the conditions which brought the ayatollah to power. We'll end up doing the same thing in Iraq most likely, and just make matters worse. Besides, it was the U.S. who supported Hussein all those years as he waged war on Iran and gassed the Kurds. You can't blame all that on the French.
Your talk about "bringing justice to evil doers" sounds like it's straight out of a comic book. Ah, if thing were only that simplistic.
What are you talking about? The statement by Dean is unbelievably...well...unbelievable. He is floating a nutty conspiracy theory worthy of some late night b-movie, first floated by the equally nutty Cynthia McKinney and nobody in the core media is calling him on it. Dean is only saying these things for political gain. He wants to promote FUD about President Bush and he is taking a stupid tack. I hope he wins the nomination, it will make for an easy re-election for Bush.
And I found those sources on google, it's all over the place if you just look for it, search for "Dean 911 bush" and have some fun.
I agree that the US was complicit in aiding Iraq during Saddam's rule (at least until 1991). We at least are trying to fix the problems we created.
Your pessimism that Iraq can't become a solid democracy is sad. We have done it before and it will succeed this time. The differences between a CIA run operation intent on putting the Shah into power and the current occupation's efforts to build a complete democratic government is huge and to draw any comparison is a weak argument. The similarities between the rebuilding of Germany and Japan are MUCH more relevant. They were and are superb examples of how the United States can instil the fire of democracy in a country. This is a good thing we are doing. Very good.
"bringing justice to evil doers" is not a simple statement, nor an easy task. But if we don't do it who will? The UN? Puh-lease.
Originally posted by bbarrOK, I'll concede to you on Clark...I guess in my opinion he would be the best of the Democrats to be chosen...at least he's military...
General Wesley Clark is hardly a Clinton clone, and it seems a stretch to say that the former Commander of all U.S. forces in Latin America ('96-'97) and the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe lacks the fortitude to properly handle the defense of the U.S. Bush's unilateral policies, and his fondness for ultimatums has actually harmed the U.S. in its 'War ...[text shortened]... ons; Bush could do worse than trying to emulate this Democrat on matters of warfare and defense.
Originally posted by chancremechanicMany of our best presidents never served in the military. Why do you think a military background would be an asset in that regard?
OK, I'll concede to you on Clark...I guess in my opinion he would be the best of the Democrats to be chosen...at least he's military...
Originally posted by rwingettYou must be referring GW Bush.. 😉 Bush has faults, as I mentioned earlier he will not secure our borders thus rendering Homeland Security ineffectual. I agree that some of our best Presidents never served: Lincoln, FDR, Reagan (Reagan served a Home front stint of military service). Some of our best presidents DID serve from Truman and Eisenhower to Kennedy. Bush Sr served admirably. Slick Willy refused to serve and has a disdain for the military, and he was not one of our best Presidents unless you give him credit for economic success, but his foreign policy sucked @$$. He is the reason bin Laden was able to grow strong. He repeatedly refused to believe FBI and CIA warnings of imminent danger. Clinton is the main reason why I think a stint in military service does a prospective president good. If you send Americans into combat, you should have an idea what the effects could be and know how to direct military movements. Is a military background a presidential prerequisite?...no, but neither is a draft-card burning amoral womanizer...regards
Many of our best presidents never served in the military. Why do you think a military background would be an asset in that regard?
Originally posted by gregofthewebI mean unilateral in that Bush was dead set on removing Saddam as soon as there was an opportunity, without first seeking an international consensus. The fact that many other nations went along with Bush when it became clear that he would not be dissuaded doesn't imply that there was any real coalition of the willing. I'm glad Saddam is gone, and that there is at least a chance for a democratic government in Iraq, but there were other ways it could have been done that didn't violate international law or undermine diplomatic relations with France, Germany, etc. So, this is neither a lie nor a point only a foggy liberal could make, but rather it is a point commonly made by those outside the U.S., and those within the U.S. who don't get their information from FOX News.
Do you mean unilateral as in by ourselves or do you mean unilateral as without France and Germany and the UN?
Because if you mean by ourselves then you are lying, but if you mean (in a weird liberal stretch of the word) unilateral to mean without France and Germany and the UN then how does not having their support undermine our policies. France has ...[text shortened]... would scuttle this effort and bring ruin to all the hard efforts and lives spent in its pursuit.
If you think that there will be a stable deomcracy in Iraq within two years, you are insane. If you think that our intentions involve bringing democracy to the world, then you mistakenly equate capitalism with democracy.
Going back to the point (kind of), what do you all think about the trial/death penalty.
Some people seem to be calling for an international trial but others say it should be done by the Iraqi people.
Some say death penalty others not.
Personally, I don't know about the trial because I don't know enough about international law. My instincts would be to say try him where the offences were committed, so Iraq for crimes against his own people but an international court for breaking international law.
As for the death penalty, I'm usually against this. In this case I think it's worth considering, but then again it seems almost not severe enough in this case. Almost an easy way out if there is such a thing. I'm not suggesting torture or anything, but a lifetime in a harsh prison (no TVs and days out and human 'rights'😉 might be a better punishment.
Originally posted by VargProbably the best punishment is the one filled with irony. Going back to the hole he came out of and serving life there. He prided himself on his bunkers that could withstand nuclear attack.
Going back to the point (kind of), what do you all think about the trial/death penalty.
Some people seem to be calling for an international trial but others say it should be done by the Iraqi people.
Some say death penalty others not.
Personally, I don't know about the trial because I don't know enough about international law. My instincts would be to say ...[text shortened]... etime in a harsh prison (no TVs and days out and human 'rights'😉 might be a better punishment.
I've always disagreed with the death penalty because I don't think it addresses any of the problems that the punishment of crime should address.
First and foremost however (not really relevant to Saddam, but I'll mention it for sake of completeness) what if you're wrong? You can let someone out of prison, but you can't give them their life back
If you are trying to rehabilitate (again, not really something we'll be trying with Saddam) killing them clearly doesn't work.
If you are trying to punish, I think that death is a bit of an easy way out. For someone like Saddam, being locked up his whole life still wouldn't be punishment enough, but a quick death would allow him to avoid even that. At the end of the day, he'll die anyway.
The only argument I can agree with for the death penalty is money, it costs too much to keep people in jail. But even that doesn't work in America, more people are put on Death Row each year than are actually killed (completely unsubstantiated comment, if anyone can put me right, feel free)
Anyway, I've gone on a bit and strayed a little from the topic, but to conclude: Lock Saddam up, don't kill him (but let the Iraqis decide this)
Originally posted by bbarr
I mean unilateral in that Bush was dead set on removing Saddam as soon as there was an opportunity, without first seeking an international consensus. The fact that many other nations went along with Bush when it became clear that he would not be dissuaded doesn't imply that there was any real coalition of the willing.
eh...how does it not imply that the participating countries were not willing. There are in the neighborhood of 40 countries sending troops and/or aid to the coalition in Iraq. What you are suggesting is that none of these countries was free to choose to join the US? Odd because plenty of countries did decide to not join so your point is NOT valid.
I'm glad Saddam is gone, and that there is at least a chance for a democratic government in Iraq, but there were other ways it could have been done that didn't violate international law or undermine diplomatic relations with France, Germany, etc.
The UN and by extension the US tried that for a decade sure wasn't working.
So, this is neither a lie nor a point only a foggy liberal could make, but rather it is a point commonly made by those outside the U.S., and those within the U.S. who don't get their information from FOX News.
Nice shot. I listen to a wide range of media. What I find is that the core media buries more good news than you can shake a stick at. Did you know there was a demonstration in Iraq on the 10th of december consisting of 10,000 people or so, protesting specifically against terrorism but also largely in support of the coalition? Did you see ANY coverage? I didn't think so. The mainstream media do NOT want you to know the truth, it goes against their agenda.
If you think that there will be a stable deomcracy in Iraq within two years, you are insane.
I am perfectly sane. What do you think it will be like in two years?
If you think that our intentions involve bringing democracy to the world, then you mistakenly equate capitalism with democracy.
No I'm not. And I DO think the administrations intentions are to bring Democracy to the world. Capitalism just happens to usually be the byproduct of a democratic society.