Rove foresees GOP victory - Page 5

Mmm, no.

More like 'George Bush and his government have made the world a more dangerous, destabalised place. America does whatever it wants. America does not give a fuck what we think. George Bush is an incompetent and very foolish man, and power in his hands makes us really, really nervous.'

We're all thinking stuff like that.

Does this now make coddling the House of Saud alright? Is it now ethical to jump into bed with any Tom, Dick, or Hussein that happens to help our interests? Starve them if they don't behave?

well yes actually, every day more evidence emerges that comparison between the Nazi's and the Republican party is valid. You may not have full blown Nazi horrors yet, but you're more than a few footsteps up the wrong path.

How do you quantify more dangerous? North Korea and Iran were going to do what they were going to do anyway. You can always disagree with the Iraq decision, but I don't know that it makes the world more dangerous.

Bush is incompetent? How so...and why? Because of Iraq? I don't know...here at home I see an America that has not been attacked in 5 years. I see a booming economy and stock market and a shrinking deficit. I see tax policies that have benefited the middle class (e.g. me). I see the Taliban gone. Saddam sentenced to death. The closing of rape and torture rooms. Certainly there is room for disagreement. But incompetent and dangerous? That's a stretch.

" but I don't know that it makes the world more dangerous. "

Because of the nature of how we attacked. Without real provocation. Countries don't trust us the same way anymore and that region is anything but stable because of what we've done. We're supposed to be the good guys with integrity remember?

Without provocation?

The US did not see a need to build globs of nukes after WWII... at least not until the Soviets developed the bomb. We reacted to the percieved threat.

If the US shows that it will invade a country with little or no provocation and against the desires of the UN, then countriesa that are on a scare list (Axis of Evil, anyone?) might perceive a threat and rally to the call just liike the US did several decades ago. Howevver, when we do it, it is good but when someone else does it it is evil.

It may be difficult to know for sure what the true rationale behind their buildups are, but they may be playing a game just like the US did. There was a time when the US populace was scared to death of the Soviet nuke threat and the US thus needed to hurry and build a deterent, despite the US already having a far larger nuke arsenal than the Soviets att that time. Did the government relay this info? No. So, is it possible that these two nations are simply responding to a US threat? iraq wwas supposedly developing nukes... we invaded and found out otherwise. Iran and NK now probably have nukes; I doubt we will invade.

You don't really believe what you're saying do you? You don't really think Iran and NK are developing Nukes because of Iraq? Their programs have been going on for years. It's totally flawed reasoning.

Secondly, you can't say it was "against the wil of the UN" They didn't specifically authorize force. That's not the same thing.

Do we have to go through this again?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/2948068.stm


How many WMDs were found? A few old shells that had actually come from, where was it, the US.

I thought a teacher would have better reading skills. I was suggesting the posibility that their preparations were in reaction to Iraq, which may have implied that the programs were sped up. It is indeed a possibility. I did not say anywhere that the programs were started as a result of Iraq. Notice also I said we may not be sure, and other ideas to suggest what I was saying was an idea. In short, it doesn't matter when the programs were started, but they are very active now and we cannot say that it is just because they felt like it; we must examine the possibility that our actions, however well-intended, may have negative impacts on other people (something most of us learned in kindergarten).

Japan and Germany were both trying to develop nukes in WWII. We just happened to beat them to it and lop two big ones on civilians, setting a great precedent for the world to come, and yet patting ourselves on the back for our accomplishment. If either of those countries had used nukes on us, what would our reaction have been?

That's hindsight, but sure, we can go through it again, if you'd like.

1. Defiance, clear defiance of 17 UN resolutions

2. Firing on our aircraft in the no fly in violation of ceasefire agreement

3. Open praise of 9/11, something no other country did.

4. Links to terror, at minimum suport for Palestinian suicide bombers

5. Failure to account for tons, literally tons of WMD materials as required



Now, let's put it in context, as I did earlier:

You're the President. The nation has just experienced the worst terror attack in history. You realize that we're at war with islamo-facists that want to destroy the Western World as we know it.

Now here's Saddam. He has done all of the above. Every major intel agency on the planet tells you that Saddam has WMD and is currently producing bio and chem weapons, and has possibly restarted his nuke program. Tenet tells you that the case for Saddam having WMD stockpiles is a "slam dunk" Saddam also tortures and gases his own people. He's a brutal dictator in the ME that hates the US. So you ask yourself: Are you willing to chance that this guy is NOT going to arm a terrorist group with one of these weapons?

Now, you go to the UN. They pass another res. after years of failed ones, this one giving Saddam one last chance, lest he face "serious consequences." Now, the UN already tried sanctions. The US tried limited military strikes in 1998. The result? Saddam continued to refuse to comply. He didn't give full access to the inspectors as he was required to do.

Look at the list. Look at the context. Are you telling me there was no provocation? Many wars have started without one nation directly provoking another with military action. The whole idea of pre-emption was to not wait and see. What other choice was there? We had tried everything else and were no longer willing to take a chance on this guy. Prior to 9/11, it was a different situation. But that event changed the way we percieved threats to our national security, as it should have, I guess I can see you disagreeing with the call, but to say there was no provocation is dubious.

Suicide bombers on the transport system in the town in which I live? Bombers in Madrid? And foiled in France? A radicalised Muslim community with a cause? Iranian influence on Iraq?

Mmm... stuff like that.

Add to that people being kidnapped, carried across borders, held without counsel, denied theiir fundamental human rights for long periods of time, never formally charged and their status legally changed after the fact. Laws can be changed retroactively to suit any need the prez has, and they do not have to coincide with international law.

It's like a bunch of pre-schoolers with very sensitive egos run the country and can be insulted by anything and will change the rules at a whim whhen it will benefit them.

Don't worry, SDW. I don't like politicians, period (never met one whom I would consider giving CPR to and I have met quite a few), so I may be saying the same thing a year from now about the new democratic congress.

Guess Rove was wrong about things this year. Poor boy.

I wonder how many times Karl has slapped his own forehead today?

It's pretty big, so I imagine it can take quite a few hits...