Time to attack iran

[elvis]

FDR was NOT isolationist. He wanted to get involved but didn't have the support. 80 percent of the country was against getting involved in World War II until December 7.

Hi Elvis.

One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?

There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked. It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.

Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.

Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently. It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.

Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.

The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.

You're all over the place.

I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Hi Elvis.

One can argue that you are correct, but I can also argue where was his leadership?

There are conspiracy theories that he intentionally kept the fleet in Hawaii to be attacked. It is well known that he was very much in favor of entering the war, but needed an event to use as a casus belli.

Sometimes being a leader means doing something that is unpopular (do I hear 2003 Iraq war - or even more to the point, how about 2009 Iran war?) but is better in the long run.

Unfortunately, shortsighted, self-serving leaders are more interested in scoring points than pursuing better decisions - like the dimwitted senators and congressmen railing about the AIG bonuses recently. It wasn't until the media-manufactured furor did they say anything and even then, their ideas sucked - they were only interested in placated an angry public - not providing intelligent, long-term solutions.

Sometimes a good leader isn't a Bill Clinton-wet my finger and see which way the polls are blowing - it means being definitive and having a press conference/national address, where a president can explain his reasoning - and if its sound, and he is of good character, can convince enough of the public his decision is just and justified.

The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception.

You're all over the place.

I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.

Indeed, it was, and support stayed above 50%, despite much unhappiness about casualties, until belief in Bush's leadership faded after Katrina.

 

[Dr Grump]

I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.

Only because the US public was gullible..

 

[elvis]

I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.

Only because the US public was gullible..

We're just good little Germans; oh I mean Americans, is that it?

more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?

 

[Dr Grump]

I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.

Only because the US public was gullible..

We're just good little Germans; oh I mean Americans, is that it?

more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?

Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....

 

[elvis]

Only because the US public was gullible..

We're just good little Germans; oh I mean Americans, is that it?

more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?

Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....

how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?

 

[Dr Grump]

We're just good little Germans; oh I mean Americans, is that it?

more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?

Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....

how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?

Which had what to do with Iraq?

 

[rhodescholar]

The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception. You're all over the place.

Damn, there are A LOT of people here with short memories...I guess you forgot about the 500,000 people who marched against it in NYC, and the same # who marched in DC a few weeks before the initial shock and awe campaign?

There was a huge of amount of opposition to it, from the UN, Arab League, NGOs, etc. etc., let alone here in the US.

Unless you are thinking about the 1991 Iraq war...

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Unlikely the west will ever do boots on the ground warfare in an Islamic state.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Unlikely the west will ever do boots on the ground warfare in an Islamic state.

Right because neither Iraq or Afghanistan are Islamic (or Somalia or Bosnia for that matter).

The US would never DARE go to any of those places.

 

[Tech_Esq]

The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception. You're all over the place.

Damn, there are A LOT of people here with short memories...I guess you forgot about the 500,000 people who marched against it in NYC, and the same # who marched in DC a few weeks before the initial shock and awe campaign?

There was a huge of amount of opposition to it, from the UN, Arab League, NGOs, etc. etc., let alone here in the US.

Unless you are thinking about the 1991 Iraq war...

There was no 500,000 person march in DC. You're high. They got a mere trifle to come out. It was more than the Gulf war, but it was still pathetic. There was no real opposition in the streets before the war.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Find me another Western Country, or member of the Coalition of the Willing, whose govt had a 70 percent approval rating with regard to Iraq. You won't because we didn't fall for the lie....

how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?

Which had what to do with Iraq?

This is what I don't understand about the left's position on Iraq. I get that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. But then, no COUNTRY did have anything to do with 9/11. Sure, AQ was using Afghanistan, but it didn't really matter what country it was. Any would have done just as well.

It just seems as if we are playing cat and mouse with the truth. AQ is a multi-national entity with no firm ties to any state. The operate where there is a vacuum of control in a nation-state. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or in Somalia or anywhere else where people are not strong enough or willing enough to prevent them from operating.

I don't feel like defending Iraq like I could do because now I'm a little less certain that we went there for the US's purposes. After listening to Richard Haas and a couple of other people, it might just be that we invaded Iraq to pursue the foreign policy of Israel rather than the US. But, despite that possibility, a "hot" war between the terrorist factions and the US had to be joined somewhere. Iraq ended up being that place. Iraq allowed the US to engage mass numbers of terrorists and decisively engage and kill them. Those engagements had to happen somewhere.

 

[Nik]

The Iraq War wasn't unpopular at it's conception. You're all over the place.

Damn, there are A LOT of people here with short memories...I guess you forgot about the 500,000 people who marched against it in NYC, and the same # who marched in DC a few weeks before the initial shock and awe campaign?

There was a huge of amount of opposition to it, from the UN, Arab League, NGOs, etc. etc., let alone here in the US.

Unless you are thinking about the 1991 Iraq war...

There was no 500,000 person march in DC. You're high. They got a mere trifle to come out. It was more than the Gulf war, but it was still pathetic. There was no real opposition in the streets before the war.

There weren't 500,000, but it wasn't exactly a trifle. Protests around the US drew in the tens of thousands, and the hundreds of thousands.

Protests against the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rhodescholar]

There was no 500,000 person march in DC. You're high. They got a mere trifle to come out. It was more than the Gulf war, but it was still pathetic. There was no real opposition in the streets before the war.

Dude, you are out of your fucking mind. I LIVE in NY, and the city was totally shut down:

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As people tried to reach the rally area they ended up constituting an unplanned march, stretching twenty blocks down First Avenue and overflowing onto Second and Third Avenue.[38] In total estimates range from been 300,000 to 400,000 protesters (WSWS estimate).[37] to over a million protesters (Berlin Heise estimate)[50]"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/17/politics.uk

"US
Last night's protest in San Francisco was the last in a weekend of American mass demonstrations.

In New York on Saturday organisers counted 400,000 demonstrators who, forbidden by a court order from marching, rallied within sight of the United Nations amid heavy security. They were joined by the South African archbishop Desmond Tutu, and actors Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover. In Chicago 3,000 gathered and in Philadelphia 5,000 more carried anti-Bush banners."

I got caught right in the middle of it, and I would guesstimate the number was close to one million.

I am wondering though, if you're either kidding or trolling

 

[L.K.Eder]

how many of those western countries were terrorized by melting skyscrapers and people plunging to their deaths?

Which had what to do with Iraq?

This is what I don't understand about the left's position on Iraq. I get that Iraq and Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Fine. But then, no COUNTRY did have anything to do with 9/11. Sure, AQ was using Afghanistan, but it didn't really matter what country it was. Any would have done just as well.

It just seems as if we are playing cat and mouse with the truth. AQ is a multi-national entity with no firm ties to any state. The operate where there is a vacuum of control in a nation-state. Like the tribal areas of Pakistan or in Somalia or anywhere else where people are not strong enough or willing enough to prevent them from operating.

I don't feel like defending Iraq like I could do because now I'm a little less certain that we went there for the US's purposes. After listening to Richard Haas and a couple of other people, it might just be that we invaded Iraq to pursue the foreign policy of Israel rather than the US. But, despite that possibility, a "hot" war between the terrorist factions and the US had to be joined somewhere. Iraq ended up being that place. Iraq allowed the US to engage mass numbers of terrorists and decisively engage and kill them. Those engagements had to happen somewhere.

i can respect this point of view, it is pragmatic, realpolitik. i don't like it, but it is a lot better than a lot of other "justifications" i read for the iraq war, namely that saddam was a bad man, remember the mass graves! and think of the children! fuck that!

 

[Bfgrn]

There's only ONE way to end all this war mongering from right wing pea brains...

AND, send Jennifer Sarah Bolton the first notice...

 

[L.K.Eder]

I believe the Iraq War had a 70 percent approval rating.

Only because the US public was gullible..

We're just good little Germans; oh I mean Americans, is that it?

more susceptible to propaganda than you people down under?

yes, you are good little 1930's germans.

then the germans experienced a reboot. it took a lot of time and destruction. but the germans of 2002 did not fall for the pathetic case for the iraq war. "excuse me i am not convinced!" that was the answer of the foreign minister joschka fischer to rumsfeld.

BUT, if the conservatives had won the elections in fall of 2002, merkel and stoiber would have joined this shitty adventure.

so the lessons of the reboot are being forgotten as i write this post. makes me mad, mad as hell, i almost can't take it anymore.

 

[L.K.Eder]

There's only ONE way to end all this war mongering from right wing pea brains...

AND, send Jennifer Sarah Bolton the first notice...

very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.

 

[rhodescholar]

very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.

Hardly. I would GLADLY be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...

 

[L.K.Eder]

very good. re-instating the draft would certainly quench the war-talk.

Hardly. I would GLADLY be re-instated, so long as it was to fly into Iran and bring justice to the fascist false scholarly murderous dogs running that nation...

the world is a little bigger than your own delusional bubble.