Soldiers

[obviousman]

Since next year I think this is a reasonable question, could the American voter actually in good conscience vote for a change after all the time, money and effort spent in Iraq? Because to change administrations now would cause drastic changes in the rebuilding of Iraq. I know I will vote Bush just for this reason alone. If a democrat was elected he would either have to go along with the Republican plan (which they have assaulted the whole time) or completely throw out everything we've done and implement a new plan.

 

[Aquarian]

An american can certainly, in good conscience, vote to change the president for whatever reason. If one thinks a change in policy and ideology is waranted in respect to the continuing operations in Iraq, they not only can you vote for change, it's your duty to do so. Water under the bridge (the lives, money, time etc) is no excuse for continuing in the same direction if one feels there is a better way to handle things. It's like finding you missed your exit on the freeway and driving to the end of the road rather than turning back once you realize you've gone too far...

 

[Bry]

i couldn't disagree with you more, obviousman. Of course a change of administrations could mean a change of some policies, but any new administration would have to find a respectable and ethical way to get us out of this mess, which I trust would not mean instantaneous withdrawal of troops and an end to reconstruction. It might mean that they open the door to the UN, who is the rightful custodian of situations like these..., but it would not mean a washing of hands. For you to pretend it does is a falacy of thinking. If you think Bush is the best man for the job, by all means vote for him. But don't neglect the other candidates, just because Bush got us into this problem.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
Since next year I think this is a reasonable question, could the American voter actually in good conscience vote for a change after all the time, money and effort spent in Iraq? Because to change administrations now would cause drastic changes in the rebuilding of Iraq. I know I will vote Bush just for this reason alone. If a democrat was elected he would either have to go along with the Republican plan (which they have assaulted the whole time) or completely throw out everything we've done and implement a new plan.

"Vote for me because only I can properly remedy my enormous mistakes!"

An interesting campaign strategy - I can't really think of any precedents.

 

[obviousman]

You forget though the "real" minds behind reconstruction in Iraq were appointed by Bush. So can you honestly say that you think a democrat president would leave Bush appointed leaders in charge of reconstructing Iraq. If you think that the Democrats wouldn't change that much then why are they so opposed to it. I mean electing a Democrat would be horrible now. Unless all the protest is just a ploy to get elected. And once in office they would basically continue on the path of Bush. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Also as sad as it is Democrats would not give Iraq for the same reasons Republicans wouldn't. While it would make better since and be more fair it will never happen. For one reason OIL. If we give UN control there is no way we'll get any type of cost relief of the oil.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
You forget though the "real" minds behind reconstruction in Iraq were appointed by Bush. So can you honestly say that you think a democrat president would leave Bush appointed leaders in charge of reconstructing Iraq. If you think that the Democrats wouldn't change that much then why are they so opposed to it. I mean electing a Democrat would be horrible now. Unless all the protest is just a ploy to get elected. And once in office they would basically continue on the path of Bush. It'll be interesting to see what happens. Also as sad as it is Democrats would not give Iraq for the same reasons Republicans wouldn't. While it would make better since and be more fair it will never happen. For one reason OIL. If we give UN control there is no way we'll get any type of cost relief of the oil.

But it's not our oil! It's Iraq's oil, and the most neutral power available, the UN, perhaps with some help from a ressurected Arab League, and above all with as many Iraqis as possible, should decide what gets done with it.

Once we make it clear to Iraqis that we don't consider it our oil some of them will stop revolting on this premise, and "Americans will pay for our oil with their soldiers' blood" will no longer be a rallying cry of the guerrillas. If it takes a Democrat to figure this out and stop handling Iraq with such greedy hands then perhaps the situation can begin to improve a bit.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

I think you have a valid point.
But people will be voting on the war as an issue.
Some people really want to pull out. Their
vote will reflect their decision.

I personally will be worried if a Democrat wins.

 

[dijetlo]

Posted by Obviousman
the "real" minds behind reconstruction in Iraq were appointed by Bush...would leave Bush appointed leaders in charge of reconstructing Iraq.

Are you reffering to Bremer? We might assume he was George Tenets choice, since he works for the CIA. Tenet is a Clinton appointee and has survived regime change in DC before (to rise to a pretty lofty spot since his underling is now the Vice Roy of Iraq) .:cof:
The program is set at this point Oman, the contracts are signed. The policy of Reconstruction is the only point on which a plurality of americans support the occupation of Iraq. A Dem president would be locked into the Bush strategy for at least half of the first term simply through contractual obligation.

For one reason OIL. If we give UN control there is no way we'll get any type of cost relief of the oil.

The oil will flow onto the spot market like it allways has the people who profit will change but the mechanism for world oil trade will not. If your wealthy enough to invest in stock and can take advantage of that, you will gain. If your not, you will see little releif at the gas pumps except for modest dips as output increases.

 

[obviousman]

I'm not talking about one man neccessarily, but all the people that Bush has implemented to erect a government in Iraq. Anybody appointed by Bush obviously has the same mindset or he wouldn't have been as idiotic as to appoint him. Also there's probably some kick backs to Bush and to the people, I seriously doubt if that situation is completely innocent. Too many businesses have investments in Iraq to let a Democrat get elected and destroy. This should prove to be an exciting election.

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by obviousman
I'm not talking about one man neccessarily, but all the people that Bush has implemented to erect a government in Iraq. Anybody appointed by Bush obviously has the same mindset or he wouldn't have been as idiotic as to appoint him. Also there's probably some kick backs to Bush and to the people, I seriously doubt if that situation is completely innocent. Too many businesses have investments in Iraq to let a Democrat get elected and destroy. This should prove to be an exciting election.

Support for Bush rose enormously in March-April, then fell quite a bit, and has mroe-or-less leveled off, declining a bit. Unless Iraq starts getting seriously better, however, it could lead to many voters going to the polls with an anyone-but-Bush attitude.

I wonder how another big terrorist attack would effect Bush's chances if his popularity continues to decline. I'm sure someone is carefully calculating it.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Yes, his name is SLClemens

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Yes, his name is SLClemens

However did you know? But I actually think that a really big, Pearl Harbor-style attack (like recommended in teh Project for a New American Century) would convince too many people that Bush's War on Terrorism has been a failure. More likely, I suspect (depending on what the polls show next summer) are a number of terrorism scares, big announcements of terrorists apprehended, and perhaps even a few terrorist acts generated to create public hysteria. If so, watch for these to be immediately connected to Syria or Palestine, or perhaps Iran, maybe via Lebanon.

Of course, it's always possible that real terrorists will attack without any "slips" from the CIA or FBI. The numbers of likely candidates must be increasing steadily.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

It's a pretty sick thing when you're just waiting for terrorists
to attack your country.

 

[Creek]

Yes..it's sad..and scary.My heart goes out to the innocent victims of such attacks...Life is precious..and it's so sad to hear of more attacks all the time......I think the world itself has crossed the line......

 

[SLClemens]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
It's a pretty sick thing when you're just waiting for terrorists
to attack your country.

Yes, and it's also a pretty sick thing to get gunned down in your own city, but yet here I am in a city with one of the highest murder rates in the Western World and I'm just sitting here waiting for it to happen. It probably won't, but the odds of it happening are much better than me getting hit by a terrorist. And unlike terrorism I know that this week a number of my fellow civilians will get shot, mostly in robberies and gangland violence, and I'm just sitting here waiting for it to happen. I can only imagine how Bagdhadis feel.

It's interesting, isn't it, how we can cynically analyze what the murder rate in Bagdhad will do for Iraqi politics, and what the effects of increases in things that kill Iraqis will be on Iraq's political future, but somehow it's apparently offensive to some to consider in the same way what the political effects of violence on American civilians will be and who may stand to gain from various sort of violence.

Thankfully, though, we need not just sit back and wait for terrorists to attack our country. For one, we can have an honest and open public debate about why our national security system failed us on 9/11, what the longstanding relationship of al-Queda and the Bin Ladens to America was, and how we can prevent such a situation from recurring. We can also do everything we can non-violently to undermine an administration taht is doing almost everything imagineable to create more future terrorists.

 

[obviousman]

I've down some research since my origional post and come to the conclusion that the American Voter votes first for the party they align themselves with second with how much money they got. They could care less how many international crimes they violate, come on Clinton is living proof of this.

 

[dijetlo]

Originally posted by obviousman
I've down some research since my origional post and come to the conclusion that the American Voter votes first for the party they align themselves with second with how much money they got. They could care less how many international crimes they violate, come on Clinton is living proof of this.

I might suggest fear, national interests, self interest as the heirarchy of reason for voters.
By the way, Clinton lied under oath in a civil action. That is not an "international" crime (though it is a felony). Even if I accept your incorrect comparison between GWB and Clinton, are you really saying that Clinton is the standard GWB is attempting to meet? Are you sure you want to argue that position?
In any case, reffing Clinton is just flogging a dead horse. Your the majority party, we're three years into your stewardship, time to step up and take responibility for your actions.

 

[obviousman]

I'm not talking about the Monica Lewinsky thing with Clinton. I'm suggesting that the American Voter doesn't do too much research as to what policies are implemented regarding foreign countries unless they affect them directly. Clinton's crimes helped are economy since he supplied many rebel(I used that because terrorist is a lot stronger) groups with weapons and money which would stimulate the economy. GWB on the other hand hasn't committed near the international crimes that Clinton did, but he will get nailed because he hasn't done anything for the economy. Here's some of the things Clinton did. He entered Iraq even after the internal courts denied permission reason," Sadam was guilty of using weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors as well as his own people."-Albright. Now the government says Iraq has never had weapons of mass destructions, hmmm *scratches chin*. Did these weapons ever exist or did Clinton need a reason to exert power on a smaller country to show that America can still kick butt. The above incident was in Clinton's second term. June 1993 Clinton orders a missile attack on Iraq, reason,"Self-defense against an armed attack"-Albright. Mainly because they say the Iraqi's attempted to assassinate Bush a few months earlier(no proof of Iraqi involvment to this day). Why was this attack in question is that Clinton never received authorized permission from the Security Council. When Clinton returned to office for his second term he basically told the UN Security Council, we'll do what we want(in more diplomatic terms). Israeli attacks on Lebanon killed tens of thousands and drove hundreds of thousands from their homes. Turkey had a massive ethnic cleansing. In both of these atrocities the Clinton administration supplied the Israeli's and Turkish with arms, which increased as the atrocities increased. Also Clinton supported Suharto's rise to power calling him,"Our man" as he killed tens of thousands of his own people. While he was condemning Sadam for the same thing. ASIL(American Society of International Law) in March 1999,"International law is today probably less highly regarded in our country than at any time."
I ask you if this does not prove that American's could care less what a president does along as their pockets are stuffed. It's not like these are isolated in his second term of office, these blatent international crimes happen all throughout his term in office. Yet they voted him back in office. And now Bush goes to war with Iraq(probably against international law but not sure) and the Democrats want to bash him and say he's a war monger with no respect for international law. When you let Clinton, a democrat, piss on international law and he gets praised and re-elected, well praised until he can't keep his penis in his pants.

 

[Bry]

I'm having some trouble (again) following your post, Obvious. Are you suggesting that the reason we thought Saddam had chemical weapons was because Clinton was busily dropping chemical weapons on Iraqi civilian populations and blaming the attacks on Iraq? Somehow, I don't think you're referring to the 5000 Kurds that died in the gas attacks in 1988. Who said Iraq never had chemical weapons? What are you talking about?

The oppression of the Kurds in Turkey started well before Clinton took office. That Clinton supplied Turkey with arms during his administration is well documented, and certainly that is evidence of his depravity, though that supply of arms was heavily supported (even demanded) by Congress.

This Suharto whose "rise to power" you say Clinton supported, is that the same Suharto who was president of indonesia for a full three decades starting in the late sixties? That would be around the time Clinton was a University student not inhaling? It was during his rise to power that Suharto commited the worst attrocities of his presidency, but that was more than two decades before Clinton took office. Again, I would never defend Clinton's support of Suharto. Hell, I wouldn't defend Clinton, period. I just can't figure out your post.

In the end, I don't even know if you're trying to criticize American foreign policy in general, or if you're justifying Bush's policies by comparing them to Clinton's.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, I just don't get it.

 

[RMW]

Originally posted by obviousman
And now Bush goes to war with Iraq(probably against international law but not sure) and the Democrats want to bash him and say he's a war monger with no respect for international law.

In my experience, criticism of Bush and his war seems not to be a partisan issue. For example, I recently spoke with a group of friends, who happen to be democrats, and every one of them supported Bush and the Iraqi war effort. They fully expected the war to be as gruesome as it has been, and believed the US was making progress. I, on the other hand, am a Republican, and have been very critical of the failure of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney to secure post-Saddam Iraq.

I was accused of taking the dim view, and possibly watching too many TV news broadcasts, which just isn't the case.

I have found this to be the true all along--many democrats with a favorable view of the President, and many Republicans who are quite critical.

regards,
rw