For all the Bush-bashers

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Again, it all depends on how you define "invade". The USA launched air and sea attacks on Libya in 1986. Their country wasn't filled with insurgents and terrorists, so there was no need for occupation. Problem was solved, and effectively.

Iraq was not full of insurgents, unless your refferring to the Kurds, who we were arming and training (still are). As for terrorists, Ansar Al-Islam moved into the area under Kurdish control, so the only part of Iraq that had a terrorist problem was the part we controlled through kurdish proxy.

Billions of dollars have been going in aid to various countries over the years to help stop human suffering.

Aid from the US is used as a carrot for a third world countries leadership. The three biggest recipients of US Foreign Aid, Isreal, Pakistan, Egypt, are not poor countries when compared to Belize, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras which all lie within 500 miles of our own border. This is kind of the elephant in the room for those who want to argue that our motivation for foriegn aid is altruistic.

Talk about ignorant, to imply that we only help countries that have resources for us is pretty lame.

No, we primarily help countries who are key to us for strategic reasons. To argue that the bulk of our aide is based on need is the argument that flies in the face of the facts.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Again, it all depends on how you define "invade". The USA launched air and sea attacks on Libya in 1986. Their country wasn't filled with insurgents and terrorists, so there was no need for occupation.

Problem was solved, and effectively.

Iraq has been about as big a threat since 1991 as Libya since 1986. Why? They are states, and their state-sponsored activities can be dealt with. You can't do that with non-state groups. Kadafi, like Saddam, had as his principle objective staying in power. You can work with people like that. The aims of groups like al-Queda are largely non-negotiable.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
Give it up Jimnyc...you cannot have a conversation with someone who either won't or can't read and understand the words you are using.

I didn't say the US has been isolationist since WWII. Nor anyone imply that this conflict was based only upon humanitarian efforts. Nor did I...

Sorry, Moi, I seems to have mis-read your argument about isolationism. But you did support an argument for humanitarian justifications for war, and this was sheer hypocrisy. You also seem completely uninterested in engaging in discussion about what the US had been doing before 9/11, and how that might have helped contribute to and facilitate such a massacre.

 

[jimnyc]

Iraq was not full of insurgents, unless your refferring to the Kurds, who we were arming and training (still are). As for terrorists, Ansar Al-Islam moved into the area under Kurdish control, so the only part of Iraq that had a terrorist problem was the part we controlled through kurdish proxy.

Nor did I say they were full of insurgents prior to the removal of the regime. The regime change was necessary and insurgency by his loyalists was expected - hence the occupation to ensure the job gets completed properly.

Aid from the US is used as a carrot for a third world countries leadership. The three biggest recipients of US Foreign Aid, Isreal, Pakistan, Egypt, are not poor countries when compared to Belize, the Dominican Republic, and Honduras which all lie within 500 miles of our own border. This is kind of the elephant in the room for those who want to argue that our motivation for foriegn aid is altruistic.

The US gives aid to Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Carribean...well, to shorten the list - pretty much all over the world. Of course they are going to be giving aid to some who we can get in return from. The US does give aid to the 3 you've mentioned, maybe not as much as you like, but they do receive aid from people in the US. (military aid and training, narcotic defenses, peace corps, civic assistance (rebuilding efforts)).

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
Sorry, Moi, I seems to have mis-read your argument about isolationism. But you did support an argument for humanitarian justifications for war, and this was sheer hypocrisy. You also seem completely uninterested in engaging in discussion about what the US had been doing before 9/11, and how that might have helped contribute to and facilitate such a massacre.

Happy to discuss that in the appropriate forum. This thread is about those who blame Bush for all of this. If events pre 9/11 are what you are using as justicfication of the arguments against this invasion, they should not be directed at those of us who support Pres. Bush and the others who've engaged in these immediate actions.

No one can turn back the hands of time to dictate what we should have or shouldn't have done before. Unfortunately, President Bush, the cabinet members and those serving in congress and the military TODAY are left with the situation at hand. Given the events they were faced with, the situation in the Middle East they were faced with and the tools at their hands AT THAT TIME, there are those of us who support the current way they are dealing with it.

I haven't seen one argument from a supporter of the the way things are being handled that implies that we are not aware of the length of time this conflict was brewing, nor have I become aware of anything that George Bush, the current President, could have done at that time or now to stem the tide of events in our favor.

 

[dijetlo]

Jimnyc
The regime change was necessary

There is the sticking point, isn't it? We don't know what is going to happen in the region and we all agree that the situation is still up in the air. What we do know is that if we hadn't acted and Hussein was still in power, GWBs' mushroom cloud was not going to come from a reconstituted Iraqi WMD program, because Iraq didn't have one. The humanitarian question is not sufficient for me to accept the invasion, there were other ways to accomplish the same goals.
On the foriegn aid question...
Dominican Republic $239.6 million (1995)
Honduras $557.8 million (1999)
Belize $NA
I'd like to know what Belize did to piss us off?

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by eric
Same old Liberal think tank garbage.

Marks' argument is valid. (I take it your reffering to SLClemmons in this post). We don't choose our friends based on their human rights record, the US never has (that's how we ended up in bed with Ferdinand Marcos, to name one of a legion of little dictators we've propped up through the years). Other countries do suffer a great deal more than the Iraqis and we do little to help them. If we are going to start using miitary force to unilateraly settle humanitarian crisis then we will need a draft, cause Iraq is just scratching the surface.
The only notable things about Iraq were Hussein and the Oil. Once Hussein is gone the humanitarian crisis might be resolved, so that leaves...just oil, doesn't it?

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by Moi
Happy to discuss that in the appropriate forum. This thread is about those who blame Bush for all of this. If events pre 9/11 are what you are using as justicfication of the arguments against this invasion, they should not be directed at those of us who support Pres. Bush and the others who've engaged in these immediate actions.

No one can turn back the hands of time to dictate what we should have or shouldn't have done before. Unfortunately, President Bush, the cabinet members and those serving in congress and the military TODAY are left with the situation at hand. Given the events they were faced with, the situation in the Middle East they were faced with and the tools at their hands AT THAT TIME, there are those of us who support the current way they are dealing with it.

I haven't seen one argument from a supporter of the the way things are being handled that implies that we are not aware of the length of time this conflict was brewing, nor have I become aware of anything that George Bush, the current President, could have done at that time or now to stem the tide of events in our favor.

Such threads, as you can see, usually depart very quickly from their specific topics. Take the one that ended up on liberal bias within universities.

As for your myopic and forgetful view of what to do about terrorism, I can only hope that when someone like Dostum, Atta Mohammed, and Karimov decides to stop cooperating with us and instead turns his followers on us, the market for anti-Americans is not as hot as it was when Osama did. Given your suggestions and endorsements for how to deal with Osama's legacy I'm not very optimistic. Anti-Americanism, I think, has never been so high in the Middle East, thanks in no small part to rhetoric like yours. Do you even give a damn what kind of people we're supporting (TODAY) and what might happen if they decide to turn around and bite us in the ass like Osama did?

 

[jon_forward]

Dont you think the Iraqi people suffered enough under the rule of saddam and sons,inc? what does it take to make you see that the Iraqi people are better off without him? A hands off approach would not have done a damn thing. not with germany and france in bed together[strange bed fellows] one only needs to look at cuba and see the end results of lets wait and see. What we DO know is that G.W is taking it to the terrorist at all levels in an attempt to keep all americans safe for their acts of terror. and in doing so helps to keep the world safer . when you get right down to it, we are all the same, we are members of THE HUMAN RACE! It is sad that there are some that dont think this way.and unfortunatly these few that think this way are being remove from our race as we speak. Thank God we have G.W and not some lets wait and see bleeding heart lib as the prez!

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jon_forward
Dont you think the Iraqi people suffered enough under the rule of saddam and sons,inc? what does it take to make you see that the Iraqi people are better off without him? A hands off approach would not have done a damn thing. not with germany and france in bed together[strange bed fellows] one only needs to look at cuba and see the end results of lets wait and see. What we DO know is that G.W is taking it to the terrorist at all levels in an attempt to keep all americans safe for their acts of terror. and in doing so helps to keep the world safer . when you get right down to it, we are all the same, we are members of THE HUMAN RACE! It is sad that there are some that dont think this way.and unfortunatly these few that think this way are being remove from our race as we speak. Thank God we have G.W and not some lets wait and see bleeding heart lib as the prez!

We'll know in about a decade whether Iraqis have been better off because of our efforts. So far 2003 has been a much worse year for most Iraqis than 2002, at least in terms of deaths and social distruption. People were making the same argument you are about Iran in '53 when we overthrew Mossadegh and installed the shah. We did not need to invade to improve Iraqis' lives and the resources could have saved far more lives elsewhere.

 

[jon_forward]

we learned from Iran. we are NOT installing a shah and are moving toward a duly elected government. you are right that time will tell, lets all hope take democracy wins out this time and takes seed . I wish I could be there when a couple in their 80s says at the polling place' what we think is important? they want to hear our voice on the matter?'

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jon_forward
we learned from Iran. we are NOT installing a shah and are moving toward a duly elected government. you are right that time will tell, lets all hope take democracy wins out this time and takes seed . I wish I could be there when a couple in their 80s says at the polling place' what we think is important? they want to hear our voice on the matter?'

I'd suggest that in fact we're not learning very much from Iran, especially if you look at our support for Pervez Musharraf. The same thing that happened to the shah could happen to him, and then we'd be faced with a worse problem than Iran ever was.

It will be at least two years before we have any sort of elected government in Iraq, and until then I can understand why so many Iraqis are upset and suspicious. What if, in two years, the only government we can envisage that will want to cooperate with us at all is a puppet, unpopular dictatorship?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by SLClemens
We'll know in about a decade whether Iraqis have been better off because of our efforts.

Why is it when something bad happens it gets glorified by you immediately and when anything positive happens we need to wait a decade to see if it's "truly" good?

Iraqi lives have been saved. Attacks have decreased. Fatalities have decreased. Deal with it.

 

[jon_forward]

all we can do as of now is hope and pray that things work out for ALL concerned over there. And one way to do that is to show support for our commander and chief, G.W If he is voted out ,which I doubt will happen, lamblast him then. The guys doing a very good job in my book. If action would have been taken in a prevous admin maybe the world would not be so :fu2: at its self. What if????

 

[eric]

Dijetlo, I was responding to his resource rich argument, not a humanitiarian one. Look back thru my posts you will not find me using humanitiarian arguments for a justification of war.

 

[jon_forward]

Thank you jimnyc!!!!!:hail: my arms were getting tired from beatin the drum alone. at least someone else has my point of views somewhat. Time for a break........back later on .....I will bring to get fire stared again.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Why is it when something bad happens it gets glorified by you immediately and when anything positive happens we need to wait a decade to see if it's "truly" good?

Iraqi lives have been saved. Attacks have decreased. Fatalities have decreased. Deal with it.

Iraqis are still dying in horrific numbers because of civil unrest. Attacks conintue. Fatalities continue. This is not something to glorify, but something to be ashamed about.

Some good things are happening. There is greater, though not complete, press freedom. Schools are up and running for the most part. Hospitals are better supplied (though fuller). Infrastructure is improving. We are still not winning hearts and minds, and seven months on Iraqis still live under the martial law of an occupier. Our military displays are not something to be proud of; they are a sign of profound failure and wishful thinking.

 

[jimnyc]

Whatever you say! I'll be busy siding with the facts. Enjoy the little world you live in.

 

[jon_forward]

was it not said somewhere that 'and this too shall pass my son' who is it to decide what price is too high to pay, what price for freedom??? It is not like the Iraqi people did not want us there. we were just what??? 10years later then when we said we would be there. for the most part I believe the people of Iraq want us there. can you blame them for having some second thoughts about trusting us again?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by SLClemens
As for your myopic and forgetful view of what to do about terrorism, I can only hope that when someone like Dostum, Atta Mohammed, and Karimov decides to stop cooperating with us and instead turns his followers on us, the market for anti-Americans is not as hot as it was when Osama did. Given your suggestions and endorsements for how to deal with Osama's legacy I'm not very optimistic. Anti-Americanism, I think, has never been so high in the Middle East, thanks in no small part to rhetoric like yours. Do you even give a damn what kind of people we're supporting (TODAY) and what might happen if they decide to turn around and bite us in the ass like Osama did?

You have an amazing ability to know what I would suggest to "do about terrorism" considering I have never put a word on these boards as to how I, if elected to congress or as President, would deal with terrorism. The "rhetoric" here seems to be your assertions that only certain people are responsible for the anti-americanism abroad. You have no basis for your statement. And, as for anti-americanism, you can certainly trace that back throughout the years as far back as WWI, if not further. If I'm not mistaken, neither I nor George W. Bush were in power at that time so it's clearly not correct to assume that "rhetoric like [mine]" had anything to do with anti-americanism's growth. Both sides share the burden of having fueled those fires. I believe that Jimmy Carter was president when hostages were taken in Iran...I don't think we can say that he was a liar just because he inherited a situation and dealt with it the best way he knew how.

If I did give a damn about what kind of people we're supporting, I sure as heck wouldn't just bury my head in the sand while my other end stuck out of the ground unprotected. I'd work within the system to change those things I believed needed changing. Show me world wide, where a decade of sanctions has worked to curb the terrorist behavior of a regime? Sometimes life is just a choice between the lesser of two evils. I don't believe in God but I know I am not God; I cannot waive my wand (or sceptor or whatever deities use these days) to make the world better. Ultimately being proved wrong is not the same thing as being a liar. And it's the classification of President Bush, congress and supporters of these current actions by the US as liars and hypocrites that I have responded to. I don't know whether the Iraqi's will be better off afterwards, but I think that guarantees are not the only reasons to enter a course of events. With that argument, we should have never fought the revolution...perhaps we should have just kept dumping tea in the water? No one would have died, but we may not now be free. Were I to have lived then, I would have taken the chance.