Extremist Democrats

[phadras]

oppose the war geeeeezzzzz..... That's not what the polls have said....

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
although it was short lived, I remember a handful of the republican leadership making claims of 'wagging the dog' when clinton bombed iraq during the lewinsky testimony.

LOL

Yep, I remember that quite well... that's when the lurid BJ details were just coming to light. That did look hella suspicious, but I certainly didn't fault him for bombing an empty terrorist camp with Tomahawks. In fact, he would have earned an Attaboy from me if he'd actually killed a few of the lunatics.

I remember there was squawking from Limbaugh and a few others that suspected the action was a diversion, but I don't recall major GOP players holding speeches and throwing around insane conspiracy theories.

Maybe the point was missed with this part. I'm saying that if we made it unwritten policy to unilaterally support the president during war, we would always be at war so the president could do what he wanted. Its why we are supposed to have a balance of power so that things like that can't happen.

I guess you missed my point - Americans do not like war, and would never stand for a 'constant state of war'. But when war is thrust upon us, it's our duty to use overwhelming force to get the job done with minimal casualties and return to peacetime as quickly as possible. The divisiveness only serves to prolong the war and detract from our Military morale.

The terrorists are using the media against us. Beheading Americans for the camera was aimed directly at the American public, especially the democrats that would use such things to call for a withdrawal of American troops.

If we reduce treason down to political dissent and speeches of opposition, we've got bigger problems than terrorism to deal with.

If we lose the war on terror, you can rest assured we'll have bigger problems. In every major American city. I'm wondering how many more civilians killed in America it would take before democrats get the picture and lend their weight to the effort?

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by phadras
oppose the war geeeeezzzzz..... That's not what the polls have said....

Maybe not, I saw one poll saying that. I'll stand corrected if you show me a recent poll that shows otherwise.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind

Yes, liberals have noticed that we are in a war. That is why cool heads have to prevail, not radical right-wing ideologues that have the flag wrapped around their head so tightly that they can neither see no think.

This is what Gore said on May 26, 2004. He’s right. You all need check you blind faith in Bush and confront the hard realities of our perilous time....

Amen.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Shooting the messenger is easier than dealing with the issues. It seems a lot of naïve right-wingers seem to believe that bombing Bagdad eliminates terrorism.

No, bombing Baghdad was only the beginning. The goal is to erect a modern democracy smack dab in the middle of other countries that produce nothing but heartache and grief for the rest of the world.

When you create an example for the rest of them to follow, the mullahs & tyrants that control the surrounding countries will lose their grip.

Terrorists aren't born, they're created. They have no hope except of an afterlife (rife with Virgins, no less!). The leadership rapes a country at the expense of the populace, and blames their hardships & poverty on America and Israel. They whip them into a frenzy in order to induce young kids to strap explosives around themselves to kill innocents. Pretty nifty, eh?

The only way to stop the creation of more terrorists is to set up Iraq to be the shining example for the rest of them. When they see how nice things can be with freedoms that you and I take for granted, why on earth wouldn't the rest of the neighboring countries demand reforms & force a change of government?

Your logic circuits have shorted out.

Have a care.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Hmm, do you consider the 60% of Americans who oppose the war treasonist(sp?)?

Let's see, Bush stated WMD's as the reason for invading Iraq yet there is absoulutely NO evidence to support this.

Should the US just invade any country it feels like?

First, considering 80% have continually supported the war from the beginning i seriously have to question where you got your 60% opposing the war. There arent even that many opposing Bush. Did you mean 60% of San Fran? That i may believe. Maybe if you included canadians in your stats possibly.

I cant believe you dems are still being dishonest about the WMDS. Saddams used them, We have found some, Saddam failed to account for them. And now we have kept Saddam from every trying to make more. Its a losing issue for you guys.

And actually we can invade any country we feel like. We certainly have the power to. But we are nice guys. We just go in liberate nations and then turn the power over to the people. Considering the liberal claim to stick up for the little guy and the oppressed you would think youd be happy that we rescued all these poor Iraqis from Saddams killing fields are torture chambers. But Like most things to liberals, humanitarism is something they say and not do.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by NightTrain
No, bombing Baghdad was only the beginning. The goal is to erect a modern democracy smack dab in the middle of other countries that produce nothing but heartache and grief for the rest of the world.

I think you should consult a map. To the north of Iraq is Turkey, a close ally of the US despite their dubius human rights record. Moving counter-clockwise you have Syria. Yuck. Next is Jordon. The King has been a quest of the White House and an "close ally" in the war on terrorism. Next, due south of Bagdad, is Saudi Arabia, the second largest recipient of US foreign aid despite being one of the richest countries in the world sitting on the largest known depotit of oil anywhere. Why so much aid? The US provides military assistance to Saudi Arabia so they can buy our weapons. It's a sweet deal for everyone except the taxpayers in the US and the oppressed citizens of Saudi Arabia. Other than that, everybody is happy. (I'm pretty sure that number 3 is Egypt by the way).

Moving right along, next the the Kingdom of Kuwait. Repelling Iraq from Kuwait was the reason for the last war. Thus it is a remarkable redirection of US policy for one Bush to go to war to return repressive monarch to power then have his son return in a decade to launch a war to bring democracy. Finally, the last, and arguable the most important country bordering Iraq is Iran.

We have a lot a stake in the Iran for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is their weapons programs. Unfortunatly invading Iraq has undermined the democratic reform movement in Iran and strengthend the hard-liners position. This is one of the most critical failures of this enterprise although one which gets scant, if any play in the media.

Okay, forget WMD, forget Al-Qaeda, forget the doctrine of pre-emptive war touted by Bush. Forget the reasons the US Senate authorized the war, in accordance with US law. Forget the reasons we asked our allies to join us in this war. Forget the reasons we gave at the UN to justify this war. Come to think of it, you have to do a lot of forgetting to buy this nation building rationale for going to war. Nonetheless, now we went to war to liberate the Iraqi people and bring democracy and freedom to the middle east.

It begs the question, why they are trying so hard to kill the US forces there. You may believe that the US invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi's, but they do not. Even if you are right, which I sincerely doubt, the Bush team has so completely screwed up the occupation that the success of the mission is in grave doubt despite a superb job by the military in overthrowing Saddam. Civil war is more likely than a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq's near future.

American soldiers doing the fighting (and their families) might just wish Washington would make up its mind about why they are there. Cynical liberals like me have suggested that the reason for the inconsistancy is that the US uses ifs military to support its own strategic, economic and geopolitical interests. Not out of ideology. But that's just us liberals. It's also what neo-conservative Paul Wolfowitz said, among other leading conservative voices.

Liberals and conservatives alike should be able to debate freely two issues. ONE. Under what circumstances should US military force be used. Should we invade another country, and sacrafice the lives of our soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to free oppressed people?

If the real issues behind the invasion are the harder issues (or a combination of them), ie. economic growth for the entire world is dependent on oil, all of the US strategic eggs are in an increasingly unreliable Saudi basket, the security council no longer supported the sanctions regime keeping Iraq in check, the need to have a platform to project force in an unstable region, etc., etc., etc. then do these issues justify the use of force?

To have a democratic society debate these issues, we have to start by electing a President that will tell us the truth about his (or her) use of force, not change the reasons every other week.

The second question, and perhaps more relevent to the mess we find ourselves in now, is: If we do go to war, how do we do it right. Winning is the only option. But what is winning? So far, Bush has not been able to define the conditions that must exist in Iraq for a US withdrawal (victory), let alone chart a course to take us there. And if the war in Iraq strengthens Al-Qaeda and international terrorists, what have we gained? What impact will this have on democracy in Iran? Turkey? What does this mean for the rule of law, built under the leadership of the US, Democrats and Republicans alike, to move the world toward a more democratic future? Are we more secure if we've pissed off all of our allies (except Latvia!)?

Originally posted by NightTrain Terrorists aren't born, they're created. [/B]

Damn right. And we sure as hell ought to stop creating them. Not for their sake, but our own.

 

[Annie]

some people feel this is a necessity since we are the good guys, even though we've got some issues with abusing prisoners and detainees, but since we're not as morally relative or morally equivalent to the terrorists, then it should be put in to context and perspective.

by DK

Don't think it has to do with us being the 'good guys' as much as survival.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Hmm, do you consider the 60% of Americans who oppose the war treasonist(sp?)?

Let's see, Bush stated WMD's as the reason for invading Iraq yet there is absoulutely NO evidence to support this.

Should the US just invade any country it feels like?

Thats it, ignore the sarin gas when it blows your arguments to smithereeens. LOL todays liberals are a funny breed.

Go back and look and then try to prove that WMD was the sole reason for Iraq. Lol this has always been good for a few laughs on the board the couple dozen times its been tried.

Also please find the poll that says that 60% or more are against the war.

 

[NightTrain]

I think you should consult a map.

I don't see any problems with my geographics. Should I consult a map? Iraq is indeed smack dab in the center of what's known as the Middle East. I'll include a nifty picture with this post so you can explore this for yourself.

To the north of Iraq is Turkey, a close ally of the US despite their dubius human rights record.

Turkey seems to have a reasonable grip on keeping control of their radicals, they seem to be one of the few. You don't hear of many terrorists from Turkey blowing up buildings and hijacking planes. Why do you think this is?

Turkey is a 'close ally' of the US? I don't think so. We maintain friendly relations with them and share information with each other in the WOT. But a close ally? No. Britain would be considered a 'close ally', not Turkey.

Moving counter-clockwise you have Syria. Yuck.

You got that right, Buckshot.
Syria has many, many problems, one of which is the production of terrorists. What sort of government does Syria have?

Next is Jordon. The King has been a quest of the White House and an "close ally" in the war on terrorism.

Close Ally? Emmm... why would you consider Jordan in such terms? Their help has been sought after, just like every other country in the region has been diplomatically contacted for assistance in tracking down bad guys, that qualifies them as a close ally? There's been many instances of terrorists operating from within that country. What kind of government does Jordan have?

Next, due south of Bagdad, is Saudi Arabia, the second largest recipient of US foreign aid despite being one of the richest countries in the world sitting on the largest known depotit of oil anywhere. Why so much aid? The US provides military assistance to Saudi Arabia so they can buy our weapons. It's a sweet deal for everyone except the taxpayers in the US and the oppressed citizens of Saudi Arabia. Other than that, everybody is happy.

Saudi, of course, has produced more than it's fair share of terrorists. What sort of government does Saudi Arabia have?

Where do you get your facts and figures as to Saudi Arabia being the 'second largest recipient of U.S. foriegn aid'? I think you'd better research this. You're wrong.

Military assistance was provided due to the threat posed from Saddam's Iraq. This is rather self evident.

Moving right along, next the the Kingdom of Kuwait. Repelling Iraq from Kuwait was the reason for the last war. Thus it is a remarkable redirection of US policy for one Bush to go to war to return repressive monarch to power then have his son return in a decade to launch a war to bring democracy.

I'm not sure how much you keep up with events like these, but Desert Shield and Desert Storm were United Nations undertakings. It was decided within the United Nations Security Council that Kuwait was to be restored. Iraq didn't comply, so they were thrown out with overwhelming force. While it's true that the USA did most of the fighting and picked up most of the bill with these operations, that's fairly standard for any UN operation.

Kuwait seems to have a relatively good handle on keeping the radicals trimmed, however, there have been cases of terrorist operations from within that country as well.

Finally, the last, and arguable the most important country bordering Iraq is Iran.

We have a lot a stake in the Iran for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is their weapons programs. Unfortunatly invading Iraq has undermined the democratic reform movement in Iran and strengthend the hard-liners position. This is one of the most critical failures of this enterprise although one which gets scant, if any play in the media.

Exactly how did we undermine a revolution in Iran? Do you think it's possible that the Ayatollah may have followed numerous precedents and cracked down? Do you really think those college kids really had any power in the first place? Think it's possible they're fervently hoping Iraq will turn out as a democracy like they've attempted to do?

Yeah, they tried. But they've tried before. What they need is an example right next door with encouragement and covert assistance. The Ayatollah rules with an iron grip, and it will get bloody before the establishment relinquishes power in that country. Revolutions are rarely bloodless.

It begs the question, why they are trying so hard to kill the US forces there. You may believe that the US invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi's, but they do not. Even if you are right, which I sincerely doubt, the Bush team has so completely screwed up the occupation that the success of the mission is in grave doubt despite a superb job by the military in overthrowing Saddam. Civil war is more likely than a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq's near future.

You must have missed the thousands of reports stating that Al Queda and related organizations have been recruiting & sending resistance fighters to Iraq. I remember seeing those stories about one month after Iraq fell to our forces.

As far as guerilla warfare, have you ever studied WWII? German guerillas fought viciously. Guerilla warfare in an occupied country from some of the populace is nothing new.

So, an influx of Al Queda combined with dissidents already in place makes for interesting times. To paint a picture that the majority of Iraqis are fighting U.S. troops in Iraq is hardly accurate.

Liberals and conservatives alike should be able to debate freely two issues. ONE. Under what circumstances should US military force be used. Should we invade another country, and sacrafice the lives of our soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars to free oppressed people?

In order to eradicate terrorism by establishing modern governments that hand the power to the people rather than to a few elites? Absolutely.

Obviously your boy Clinton's appeasement policies did nothing but encourage attacks upon the USA and the rest of the civilized world. The head-in-the-sand approach got New York attacked, remember? If Clinton had done his duty as President, Bin Laden would have been hunted down and neutralized well before 9-11.

Clinton didn't, so here we are. Now that we're mobilized with a workable plan, all you hear is liberals condemning this monumental effort to safeguard America. Rather than putting forth ideas and other workable strategies, liberals are criticizing and making politically motivated speeches. It's enough to make a maggot puke.

 

[brneyedgrl80]

I couldn't find any polls being for or against the war, but I did find this and thought this was interesting and a tad related to what is being discussed.

http://www.ippnw-europe.org/main/voices.htm

 

[The Worried One]

My point exactly thank you breye and nice slogan i full heartedly agree

 

[Annie]

If the roles were reversed, you can't tell me that the republican leadership wouldn't be doing somewhat close to the same thing.

by DK

You know DK, I don't think the Republicans would be doing what the Dems are currently. I am not saying that they wouldn't be giving an incumbent a run for the money, but not at the expense of possible safety.

I don't think that disagreeing with the administration is 'treasonous', I do think what Democratic leadership has been doing via Gore, Pelosi, and Kennedy is dangerous for our troops, the country's morale, and possibly security.

Interestingly this morning I heard a Washington Post reporter on one of the news programs say that she was astounded that Bush seems willing to risk his re-election by not caving into what the left is trying to force him to do. She said that many of the reporters were surprised and now hold him in higher esteem.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Interestingly this morning I heard a Washington Post reporter on one of the news programs say that she was astounded that Bush seems willing to risk his re-election by not caving into what the left is trying to force him to do. She said that many of the reporters were surprised and now hold him in higher esteem.

I just returned from a quick trip to Malaysia and Singapore and in reading the papers over there (especially the Herald Tribune) you would think that the entire USA was against Bush and that he was surely headed to defeat. It was depressing. But when talking to the average Joes on the street (mainly the Chinese and Indians not necessarily the Bumi-Putras but many of them also) they were happy for what the USA is doing. I had one guy tell me, "hey, the world needs a police force and nobody is capable of doing it, or willing to do it, so we are glad for what America is doing." Granted, the Singaporeans realize the danger than most outside of America (as they have thwarted SEVERAL attempted bombings there against US, Australian and Israeli targets) but it was very heartening to hear they actually support us and THEY TOO blame the media.

Also, the main point I heard over and over and over again was, "hey, at least Bush does what he says he is going to do; like it or not. He obviously is a man of conviction." Frankly, he is pretty highly respected and regarded in the Asian community. They view him as being strong and not caving just to get re-elected.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
Also, the main point I heard over and over and over again was, "hey, at least Bush does what he says he is going to do; like it or not. He obviously is a man of conviction." Frankly, he is pretty highly respected and regarded in the Asian community. They view him as being strong and not caving just to get re-elected.

Stop with the propaganda! We all know Bush is hated throughout the world. Just admit it. Some French and Germans hate Bush. Therefore everyone must hate Bush. We cant let him take another international coalition on a unilateral action against some rogue nation. We cant go it alone dang it!

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Stop with the propaganda! We all know Bush is hated throughout the world. Just admit it. Some French and Germans hate Bush. Therefore everyone must hate Bush. We cant let him take another international coalition on a unilateral action against some rogue nation. We cant go it alone dang it!

I'm sorry man.... you're right..... I mean, doesn't France and Germany = the world?

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by NightTrain

Turkey is a 'close ally' of the US? I don't think so. We maintain friendly relations with them and share information with each other in the WOT. But a close ally? No. Britain would be considered a 'close ally', not Turkey.

Turkey's a member of NATO. You're splitting a hair.

Originally posted by NightTrain
I'm not sure how much you keep up with events like these, but Desert Shield and Desert Storm were United Nations undertakings. It was decided within the United Nations Security Council that Kuwait was to be restored. Iraq didn't comply, so they were thrown out with overwhelming force. While it's true that the USA did most of the fighting and picked up most of the bill with these operations, that's fairly standard for any UN operation.

Wrong. Most of the tab for gulf war i was paid by member states of the UN, particularly Japan, a country heavily dependent on imported oil.

Originally posted by NightTrain
Revolutions are rarely bloodless.

The largest democracy in the world came about through a largely bloodless revolution as did democracy in South Africa.

Originally posted by NightTrain
In order to eradicate terrorism by establishing modern governments that hand the power to the people rather than to a few elites? Absolutely.

I think you were right about foreign aid. In 2003, the top recipients of US foreign aid were Israel, Egypt, states in the Russian Federation (probably Nunn/Lugar money to get control of former Soviet nukes) and Columbia.

Finally, your statement above is correct but points to the hypocracy and futilty of US policy that claims to bring democracy when we want to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests, but prop up ruthless dictatorships throughout the middle east if they play nice. It is worth remembering that the Shaw of Iran and Saddam both received political and military support from Washington when both regimes were brutally repressing their populations. If U.S. policy were truly based upon bedrock american principals of exporting democracy, promotion of human rights and economic prosperity for developing countries (not just their dictators that we back), then there would be fewer fanatics willing to kill themselves by flying aircraft into our buildings.