Actions speak louder than words. As good as he was at diplomacy Clinton is an media whore. What he's doing now by criticizing Bush is unprecendented and underhanded. If he goes on television and bashes Bush I'll lose all respect for him. Bush-41 didn't say a damned thing about him for all 8 years, but Arkansas-boy has no class, not that that is news to anyone.
Edit: I realized that there possibly couldn't be any way someone would not realize the importance of what Clinton is saying, which was my initial interpretation of your reaction, pscartes. Sorry.
anyway, I think that those attitudes are just below the surface of consciousness . . . they don't die out . . many people secretly want war and want it for its own sake . . .
It's unfortunate you feel that way. I'd hate to have that view of the world. "
--
Groverat,
I work at a university and lately I've heard way too many gung-ho young people who if you talk to them at any length at all you realize that they aren't really sure why we should go to war. They're just jumping on the band wagon. It's sad but true.
Actions speak louder than words. As good as he was at diplomacy Clinton is an media whore. What he's doing now by criticizing Bush is unprecendented and underhanded. If he goes on television and bashes Bush I'll lose all respect for him. Bush-41 didn't say a damned thing about him for all 8 years, but Arkansas-boy has no class, not that that is news to anyone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is pretty silly but fair enough. Most of us have already lost all respect for Bush as what he's doing is out of line.
So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge,
I wouldn't worry about the next election.
When I was sitting over at a friend's house and watched Clinton apologize to the american people I turned to my friend and said " we're going to have a republican president next time ".
Well I'm just as sure now that Bush will not have a second term. It would take an act of god.
Just tonight I was talking to a lady who's married to one of the emeritis faculity here where I work. She was hopping mad at George Bush for what he's doing. And you know she called it pretty much like it is. " He's going to have this war no matter what Saddam does ". People aren't really stupid. Lazy maybe but not stupid. They can see what he's doing.
Not enough people voted last time but I'd be willing to bet that's going to change.
If he's pissing off people well maybe he knows his goose is cooked and is trying to make as big a splash as possible before the next election.
<strong>If he's pissing off people well maybe he knows his goose is cooked and is trying to make as big a splash as possible before the next election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But what I'm saying is that his chances for re-election in the future are not necessarily determined by the GOP performance in the November elections because of he can't back down from it now. A lot of public opinion has changed since then. Am I misunderstanding?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As usual, I think we're saying the same thing with different words. I'm just saying that he picked a course that would give the republicans the best chances in mid-term elections, and now he's stuck on that path for better or worse. Considering how successful it was during the mid-terms, I'd guess the party believes it's going to continue to be successful.
that's a good video but it is propaganda as well . . . meaning that he has a specific agenda,
for instance, there are numerous reasons that we did not 'keep' the oil fields in Kuwait.... mainly, that that was not the goal,
but also, there are some not entirely unreasonable OTHER reasons that exist as well and along side of that:
. . . we didn't need to 'keep' them, we had Kuwait to work with, and now with the whle region becoming potentially suspect, well . . .?!?!
also, we were not going in alone, we were part of a big coalition (although the biggest part) and couldn't just stake claims
so now, if we make sure to continue to alienate the big powerfull allies then we can claim what we want . . .
but that's just two minutes of thinking on that
------------
and anyway, back to the other point above about people's darker wishes:
I didn't say that whole speil in order to condemn people who think that the war is a good idea . . . I understand your reasoning and I see where it makes sense.
I was saying that even the peacenicks feel this way in unconsciouse levels.
to get even them upset at me, I would go so far as to say that protests are actually, in part, not against wars and violence, as they say they are, but are forms of celebration. . . where much of that is held up as what is hated is actually being celebrated at an unconsciouse level.
I came to this understanding during the first Gulf War when I went to a protest and there was much Civ-Disobedience and things got broken and burned . . . and lots of drumming etc . . . these people were celebrating, and it wasn't just that they celebrated solidarity among themselves as peacenicks, no, it was a darker sort of celebration of that which brought them together in the first place
...but then again, I am a firm believer in the unconsciouse, and when you take that (the unconsciouse) seriously, you start to look for weird things like this . . . like the return of the repressed in strange unthought of places.
[quote]<strong>that's a good video but it is propaganda as well . . . meaning that he has a specific agenda,</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I don't think anyone is making this a scientific study.
[quote][qb]for instance, there are numerous reasons that we did not 'keep' the oil fields in Kuwait.... mainly, that that was not the goal,
but also, there are some not entirely unreasonable OTHER reasons that exist as well and along side of that:
. . . we didn't need to 'keep' them, we had Kuwait to work with, and now with the whle region becoming potentially suspect, well . . .?!?!
also, we were not going in alone, we were part of a big coalition (although the biggest part) and couldn't just stake claims
so now, if we make sure to continue to alienate the big powerfull allies then we can claim what we want . . .<hr></blockquote>
Well cookies for you that you know the answer, but you miss the point. The point is not the find the answer but to guage the knowledge of those protesting the issue.
[quote]to get even them upset at me, I would go so far as to say that protests are actually, in part, not against wars and violence, as they say they are, but are forms of celebration. . . where much of that is held up as what is hated is actually being celebrated at an unconsciouse level.<hr></blockquote>
That's very psychoanalytical.
And I'd agree to a large extent. People that say "what about the poor Iraqis" are using it as a political tool in many cases. They don't really care because if they did there would've been million-strong rallies in 1995 when it became obvious that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were dying as a result of economic sanctions (there were people against it, absoultely, but not en masse) and in 1998 when Clinton was dropping bombs on them.
Nice film but Jay Leno does the same thing on the tonight show. With careful editing it's easy to make people appear clueless.
The thing is why didn't we do this during the first war? Will we just give the oil back to the people in Iraq afterwards? How long will we have to stay there? How much will it cost us? Why are we picking on this one tyrant just now?
What the hell are we doing over there anyway? Why is Saddam who used to be our friend in the 70's now the bad guy and we are talking to the country who was the enemy then ( Iran ). Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN? Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home? Why isn't he concentrating on that instead? Which is a pressing problem ( even if some people refuse to see it because it would mean that they would have to ask questions they don't want to raise ).
I could go on and the answer to some of these questions refer to each other. Since this isn't a pressing issue why doesn't Bush put it before the people who ( almost ) elected him? I think you already know the answer to that one.
These questions have been asked before on this board and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
You see I still think Bush like any other elected official works for us ( not the other way around ). Anyone who isn't doing the job he was hired for should be let go.
<strong> Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN? Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home? Why isn't he concentrating on that instead?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He does not care if the UN cares. This is about the security of the United States. As for the Economy it depends on a secure world or forget the economy. If we have WOMD deployed in this country in 6 cities at once what do you think that will do to the domestic economy as well as the world economy?
First things are first. You may think leaving Saddam to his WOMD is a safe bet. I don't
[quote]Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook:
<strong>
He does not care if the UN cares. This is about the security of the United States. As for the Economy it depends on a secure world or forget the economy. If we have WOMD deployed in this country in 6 cities at once what do you think that will do to the domestic economy as well as the world economy?
First things are first. You may think leaving Saddam to his WOMD is a safe bet. I don't
<strong>Nice film but Jay Leno does the same thing on the tonight show. With careful editing it's easy to make people appear clueless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I realize this, it's not a scientific study.
[quote]The thing is why didn't we do this during the first war?<hr></blockquote>
Do what?
[quote]Will we just give the oil back to the people in Iraq afterwards? How long will we have to stay there?<hr></blockquote>
What does that mean? How are we going to "take it" in the first place which would require "giving it back"?
Blair and Bush have both said that Iraq's oil will be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Will we be making some money off it as well? Most likely, but "giving it back" implies taking it in the first place. It's a red herring question.
[quote]How much will it cost us?<hr></blockquote>
A lot.
[quote]Why are we picking on this one tyrant just now?<hr></blockquote>
Hello, my name is Adam. This is planet Earth. Welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay. This isn't new, this isn't new at all. How selective some people's memories are. This was a "pressing issue" to our president in 1998 who dropped many many bombs on Saddam without UN approval for 4 days because he was a threat.
[quote]What the hell are we doing over there anyway?<hr></blockquote>
If you don't know the answers to these basic questions why participate in a discussion about the subject?
17 resolutions over 12 years, all broken. A broken cease-fire. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. Territorial aggression. Biological and chemical weapons, past history of attempts to get nuclear weapons. Come on, jimmac, try and keep up.
[quote]Why is Saddam who used to be our friend in the 70's now the bad guy and we are talking to the country who was the enemy then ( Iran ).<hr></blockquote>
Because he gassed his own people and invaded Kuwait, that's why he's no longer our friend.
[quote]Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN?<hr></blockquote>
Ok, Jimmac, I'm going to try my best to be nice with this. But do you know anything about the history of this conflict? Anything at all? Even a little bit or did you just wake up from a 13-year nap?
What in God's name tells you that there's a "tradition" of only going in with UN stamp of approval? Because our recent "bomb Iraq" (Desert Fox, '98) campaigns were undertaken without even asking the UN.
He's breaking tradition by asking the UN, you've got it backwards. We haven't asked the UN for approval to bomb Iraq since 1991, and we've been bombing Iraq essentially every week since then. No-fly zones? Not UN-approved. Desert Fox? Not UN-approved.
[quote]Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home?<hr></blockquote>
That's a good reason to not take necessary measures to protect the country?
We hit an economic rough spot and we're supposed to lay down and ignore everything else in the world? I'm glad you don't make policy.
[quote]Why isn't he concentrating on that instead? Which is a pressing problem ( even if some people refuse to see it because it would mean that they would have to ask questions they don't want to raise ).<hr></blockquote>
He's not concentrating on that? Where do you get that idea? From his Medicaire and tax-cut proposals, or do those not exist?
[quote]Since this isn't a pressing issue why doesn't Bush put it before the people who ( almost ) elected him? I think you already know the answer to that one.<hr></blockquote>
What, in the history of the United States, would make that a common thing for a president to do? A national referendum? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]These questions have been asked before on this board and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.<hr></blockquote>
"Satisfactory".
They're all answered, further explanation as needed.
<strong>Nice film but Jay Leno does the same thing on the tonight show. With careful editing it's easy to make people appear clueless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. KMFDM did this with Jimmy Carter to make him look like a fascist war-monger (oh, how times change), and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to make him look like a violent revolutionary way back when. It was all kitsch of course.
[quote]The thing is why didn't we do this during the first war?<hr></blockquote>
Good question, definitely a mistake.
[quote]Will we just give the oil back to the people in Iraq afterwards?<hr></blockquote>
That's the plan according to Powell &Co.
[quote]How long will we have to stay there?<hr></blockquote>
I'd bet at least 5 years, probably going on 10. The transition to a representative government will probably officially hapen wthin the first year, but it will be propped up by US coalition and/or UN forces for the first 5 years.
[quote]How much will it cost us?<hr></blockquote>
How much will it cost us to take care of this later, or worse, clean up after something terrible happens. To me, this is a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition in economic terms, probably in military terms as well.
[quote]Why are we picking on this one tyrant just now?<hr></blockquote>
No better time than the present. Really, people are right that we should have been doing this a long time ago, but we didn't. So here we are. and yes, more tyrants should be taken care of too; I don't think this is a one hit wonder for the Wolfowitz policy, and that includes our "allies" like Kuwait, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.
[quote]What the hell are we doing over there anyway?<hr></blockquote>
A question with many answers. 1. his weapons post at least an indirect threat to us like North Korea and others who sells arms to anyone who can pay for them. 2. their oil supply is important to us, and they threaten the oil supply (and other supplies) of its neighbors. Let's be honest -- the first Gulf War was about oil more than this one. 3. he threatens allies, whether I like Saudi Arabia's government or not, plus Israel, Jordan, etc. He already pays "pensions" to Hamas suicide bomber's families, so I think he's already threatening allies. 4. The guy doesn't like us as much as we don't lke him, and he did try to assasinate a President, so I suppose you could argue that it's whoever takes the other out first (a bit extreme this one) 5. human-right abuses and his Stalinist control over the people of Iraq. I actually think the humanitarian rationale is the strongest cause for intervention.
Now, You can certainly take issue with some of these things, but, to use a cliché, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. like I said, some of these reasons are a more valid concern than others, and some are less about a direct threat as they are the Right Thing to Do?.
[quote]Why is Saddam who used to be our friend in the 70's now the bad guy and we are talking to the country who was the enemy then ( Iran ).<hr></blockquote>
I would say that Iraq was never considered a friend, just that we had a common enemy. So while it would be fair to characterize the relationship as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," I don't think the expression should be taken too far. We were never "friends" like we are with France even.
[quote]Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN?<hr></blockquote>
Trying to read Bush's mind, I think he sees the threat of Iraq's weapons as being so immediate that a UN that dismisses these threats puts the US at a high risk against them. I'm not someone who thinks Saddam is going to bomb us with VX gas, but I do think he would pay someone else to do it, or sell them any weapons he has so they can do the dirty work. I think Bush just wants to know what happened to his weapons, and is willing to go to obviously aggressive measures to find out. Plus he probably feels like if they do leave Saddam in power, even if they do disclose all weapons to the inspectors, that he'll just make more. I think that's his motivation to have Hussein ousted as well, that finding out about weapns isn't enough -- not until the means and motivation for making them is gone too.
I think Tony Blair has been more vocal about the humanitarian mission to liberate Iraq, or at least he's been more eloquent. I feel like Bush sort of has that in his head, but in the back of his mind even though it's the strongest motivation for regime change.
[quote]Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home?<hr></blockquote>
I think Bush sees the two issues as somewhat exclusive. I think he also thinks that not doing something now would hurt the conomy more in the long run -- more threats, more 9/11 type stuff if weapons do get out among terrorists, etc.
[quote]Why isn't he concentrating on that instead?<hr></blockquote>
I think Bush is concentrating on that too, just that his plans kind of stink. Tax breaks aren't economic incentives all by themselves (not mention who's getting the real breaks).
I could go on and the answer to some of these questions refer to each other. Since this isn't a pressing issue why doesn't Bush put it before the people who ( almost ) elected him? I think you already know the answer to that one.
These questions have been asked before on this board and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
[quote]Anyone who isn't doing the job he was hired for should be let go.<hr></blockquote>
Despite what bunge claims, I thin that's more and more likely to happen in two years. The economy isn't picking up, it's treading water at best (good news and bad news seem to alternate), a lot of people have fallen out of favor of war without the UN's blessing, rather inept attempts at homeland security measures and preparedness, etc.
Comments
Actions speak louder than words. As good as he was at diplomacy Clinton is an media whore. What he's doing now by criticizing Bush is unprecendented and underhanded. If he goes on television and bashes Bush I'll lose all respect for him. Bush-41 didn't say a damned thing about him for all 8 years, but Arkansas-boy has no class, not that that is news to anyone.
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anyway, I think that those attitudes are just below the surface of consciousness . . . they don't die out . . many people secretly want war and want it for its own sake . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's unfortunate you feel that way. I'd hate to have that view of the world. "
--
Groverat,
I work at a university and lately I've heard way too many gung-ho young people who if you talk to them at any length at all you realize that they aren't really sure why we should go to war. They're just jumping on the band wagon. It's sad but true.
Fortunately most of the campus is against it.
<strong>giant:
Actions speak louder than words. As good as he was at diplomacy Clinton is an media whore. What he's doing now by criticizing Bush is unprecendented and underhanded. If he goes on television and bashes Bush I'll lose all respect for him. Bush-41 didn't say a damned thing about him for all 8 years, but Arkansas-boy has no class, not that that is news to anyone.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is pretty silly but fair enough. Most of us have already lost all respect for Bush as what he's doing is out of line.
<strong>
So you're going to argue that he's hurting his chances at reelection? Show us some evidence, because the evidence of the mid-term elections show that you're wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge,
I wouldn't worry about the next election.
When I was sitting over at a friend's house and watched Clinton apologize to the american people I turned to my friend and said " we're going to have a republican president next time ".
Well I'm just as sure now that Bush will not have a second term. It would take an act of god.
Just tonight I was talking to a lady who's married to one of the emeritis faculity here where I work. She was hopping mad at George Bush for what he's doing. And you know she called it pretty much like it is. " He's going to have this war no matter what Saddam does ". People aren't really stupid. Lazy maybe but not stupid. They can see what he's doing.
Not enough people voted last time but I'd be willing to bet that's going to change.
If he's pissing off people well maybe he knows his goose is cooked and is trying to make as big a splash as possible before the next election.
That in it self is kind of scary.
<strong>If he's pissing off people well maybe he knows his goose is cooked and is trying to make as big a splash as possible before the next election.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Or maybe he's just doing what he thinks is right.
No no, of course not.
Re: mindless followers. The knife cuts <a href="http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html"; target="_blank">both ways</a>.
<strong>
But what I'm saying is that his chances for re-election in the future are not necessarily determined by the GOP performance in the November elections because of he can't back down from it now. A lot of public opinion has changed since then. Am I misunderstanding?</strong><hr></blockquote>
As usual, I think we're saying the same thing with different words. I'm just saying that he picked a course that would give the republicans the best chances in mid-term elections, and now he's stuck on that path for better or worse. Considering how successful it was during the mid-terms, I'd guess the party believes it's going to continue to be successful.
<strong>
Or maybe he's just doing what he thinks is right.
No no, of course not.
Re: mindless followers. The knife cuts <a href="http://www.brain-terminal.com/articles/video/peace-protest.html"; target="_blank">both ways</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
that's a good video but it is propaganda as well . . . meaning that he has a specific agenda,
for instance, there are numerous reasons that we did not 'keep' the oil fields in Kuwait.... mainly, that that was not the goal,
but also, there are some not entirely unreasonable OTHER reasons that exist as well and along side of that:
. . . we didn't need to 'keep' them, we had Kuwait to work with, and now with the whle region becoming potentially suspect, well . . .?!?!
also, we were not going in alone, we were part of a big coalition (although the biggest part) and couldn't just stake claims
so now, if we make sure to continue to alienate the big powerfull allies then we can claim what we want . . .
but that's just two minutes of thinking on that
------------
and anyway, back to the other point above about people's darker wishes:
I didn't say that whole speil in order to condemn people who think that the war is a good idea . . . I understand your reasoning and I see where it makes sense.
I was saying that even the peacenicks feel this way in unconsciouse levels.
to get even them upset at me, I would go so far as to say that protests are actually, in part, not against wars and violence, as they say they are, but are forms of celebration. . . where much of that is held up as what is hated is actually being celebrated at an unconsciouse level.
I came to this understanding during the first Gulf War when I went to a protest and there was much Civ-Disobedience and things got broken and burned . . . and lots of drumming etc . . . these people were celebrating, and it wasn't just that they celebrated solidarity among themselves as peacenicks, no, it was a darker sort of celebration of that which brought them together in the first place
...but then again, I am a firm believer in the unconsciouse, and when you take that (the unconsciouse) seriously, you start to look for weird things like this . . . like the return of the repressed in strange unthought of places.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is making this a scientific study.
[quote][qb]for instance, there are numerous reasons that we did not 'keep' the oil fields in Kuwait.... mainly, that that was not the goal,
but also, there are some not entirely unreasonable OTHER reasons that exist as well and along side of that:
. . . we didn't need to 'keep' them, we had Kuwait to work with, and now with the whle region becoming potentially suspect, well . . .?!?!
also, we were not going in alone, we were part of a big coalition (although the biggest part) and couldn't just stake claims
so now, if we make sure to continue to alienate the big powerfull allies then we can claim what we want . . .<hr></blockquote>
Well cookies for you that you know the answer, but you miss the point. The point is not the find the answer but to guage the knowledge of those protesting the issue.
[quote]to get even them upset at me, I would go so far as to say that protests are actually, in part, not against wars and violence, as they say they are, but are forms of celebration. . . where much of that is held up as what is hated is actually being celebrated at an unconsciouse level.<hr></blockquote>
That's very psychoanalytical.
And I'd agree to a large extent. People that say "what about the poor Iraqis" are using it as a political tool in many cases. They don't really care because if they did there would've been million-strong rallies in 1995 when it became obvious that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were dying as a result of economic sanctions (there were people against it, absoultely, but not en masse) and in 1998 when Clinton was dropping bombs on them.
I saw your video and it makes the same case I see with those who protest war. However:
It does not count because #1 the guy who made the video is an American so he does not count.
He must be a conservative right wing whacko.
He must be a cowboy from Texas so he is not able to produce any reasonable point.
He must be after iraqi oil.
He must work for Exxon-Mobil
He must be a Christian and they don't count because they believe in the man in the sky that does not exist right?
He is unilateral.
He is a white male
I could go on and on Groverat. I just thought I should let you know that video has no merit for the reasons I list above.
We should let Saddam do what ever he wishes with his killing stocks.
Wow I could almost make a good liberal.
F*ck that. There is more to life.
Fellowship
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: FellowshipChurch iBook ]</p>
The thing is why didn't we do this during the first war? Will we just give the oil back to the people in Iraq afterwards? How long will we have to stay there? How much will it cost us? Why are we picking on this one tyrant just now?
What the hell are we doing over there anyway? Why is Saddam who used to be our friend in the 70's now the bad guy and we are talking to the country who was the enemy then ( Iran ). Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN? Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home? Why isn't he concentrating on that instead? Which is a pressing problem ( even if some people refuse to see it because it would mean that they would have to ask questions they don't want to raise ).
I could go on and the answer to some of these questions refer to each other. Since this isn't a pressing issue why doesn't Bush put it before the people who ( almost ) elected him? I think you already know the answer to that one.
These questions have been asked before on this board and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
You see I still think Bush like any other elected official works for us ( not the other way around ). Anyone who isn't doing the job he was hired for should be let go.
<strong> Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN? Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home? Why isn't he concentrating on that instead?</strong><hr></blockquote>
He does not care if the UN cares. This is about the security of the United States. As for the Economy it depends on a secure world or forget the economy. If we have WOMD deployed in this country in 6 cities at once what do you think that will do to the domestic economy as well as the world economy?
First things are first. You may think leaving Saddam to his WOMD is a safe bet. I don't
Fellowship
<strong>
He does not care if the UN cares. This is about the security of the United States. As for the Economy it depends on a secure world or forget the economy. If we have WOMD deployed in this country in 6 cities at once what do you think that will do to the domestic economy as well as the world economy?
First things are first. You may think leaving Saddam to his WOMD is a safe bet. I don't
Fellowship</strong><hr></blockquote>
Where are they?
<strong>Nice film but Jay Leno does the same thing on the tonight show. With careful editing it's easy to make people appear clueless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I realize this, it's not a scientific study.
[quote]The thing is why didn't we do this during the first war?<hr></blockquote>
Do what?
[quote]Will we just give the oil back to the people in Iraq afterwards? How long will we have to stay there?<hr></blockquote>
What does that mean? How are we going to "take it" in the first place which would require "giving it back"?
Blair and Bush have both said that Iraq's oil will be used for the benefit of the Iraqi people. Will we be making some money off it as well? Most likely, but "giving it back" implies taking it in the first place. It's a red herring question.
[quote]How much will it cost us?<hr></blockquote>
A lot.
[quote]Why are we picking on this one tyrant just now?<hr></blockquote>
Hello, my name is Adam. This is planet Earth. Welcome, I hope you enjoy your stay. This isn't new, this isn't new at all. How selective some people's memories are. This was a "pressing issue" to our president in 1998 who dropped many many bombs on Saddam without UN approval for 4 days because he was a threat.
[quote]What the hell are we doing over there anyway?<hr></blockquote>
If you don't know the answers to these basic questions why participate in a discussion about the subject?
17 resolutions over 12 years, all broken. A broken cease-fire. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. Territorial aggression. Biological and chemical weapons, past history of attempts to get nuclear weapons. Come on, jimmac, try and keep up.
[quote]Why is Saddam who used to be our friend in the 70's now the bad guy and we are talking to the country who was the enemy then ( Iran ).<hr></blockquote>
Because he gassed his own people and invaded Kuwait, that's why he's no longer our friend.
[quote]Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN?<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Ok, Jimmac, I'm going to try my best to be nice with this. But do you know anything about the history of this conflict? Anything at all? Even a little bit or did you just wake up from a 13-year nap?
What in God's name tells you that there's a "tradition" of only going in with UN stamp of approval? Because our recent "bomb Iraq" (Desert Fox, '98) campaigns were undertaken without even asking the UN.
He's breaking tradition by asking the UN, you've got it backwards. We haven't asked the UN for approval to bomb Iraq since 1991, and we've been bombing Iraq essentially every week since then. No-fly zones? Not UN-approved. Desert Fox? Not UN-approved.
[quote]Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home?<hr></blockquote>
That's a good reason to not take necessary measures to protect the country?
We hit an economic rough spot and we're supposed to lay down and ignore everything else in the world? I'm glad you don't make policy.
[quote]Why isn't he concentrating on that instead? Which is a pressing problem ( even if some people refuse to see it because it would mean that they would have to ask questions they don't want to raise ).<hr></blockquote>
He's not concentrating on that? Where do you get that idea? From his Medicaire and tax-cut proposals, or do those not exist?
[quote]Since this isn't a pressing issue why doesn't Bush put it before the people who ( almost ) elected him? I think you already know the answer to that one.<hr></blockquote>
What, in the history of the United States, would make that a common thing for a president to do? A national referendum? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]These questions have been asked before on this board and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.<hr></blockquote>
"Satisfactory".
They're all answered, further explanation as needed.
<strong>
"Satisfactory".
It's just that most of your answers are crap.
<strong>Nice film but Jay Leno does the same thing on the tonight show. With careful editing it's easy to make people appear clueless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Indeed. KMFDM did this with Jimmy Carter to make him look like a fascist war-monger (oh, how times change), and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. to make him look like a violent revolutionary way back when. It was all kitsch of course.
[quote]The thing is why didn't we do this during the first war?<hr></blockquote>
Good question, definitely a mistake.
[quote]Will we just give the oil back to the people in Iraq afterwards?<hr></blockquote>
That's the plan according to Powell &Co.
[quote]How long will we have to stay there?<hr></blockquote>
I'd bet at least 5 years, probably going on 10. The transition to a representative government will probably officially hapen wthin the first year, but it will be propped up by US coalition and/or UN forces for the first 5 years.
[quote]How much will it cost us?<hr></blockquote>
How much will it cost us to take care of this later, or worse, clean up after something terrible happens. To me, this is a "pay me now or pay me later" proposition in economic terms, probably in military terms as well.
[quote]Why are we picking on this one tyrant just now?<hr></blockquote>
No better time than the present.
[quote]What the hell are we doing over there anyway?<hr></blockquote>
A question with many answers. 1. his weapons post at least an indirect threat to us like North Korea and others who sells arms to anyone who can pay for them. 2. their oil supply is important to us, and they threaten the oil supply (and other supplies) of its neighbors. Let's be honest -- the first Gulf War was about oil more than this one. 3. he threatens allies, whether I like Saudi Arabia's government or not, plus Israel, Jordan, etc. He already pays "pensions" to Hamas suicide bomber's families, so I think he's already threatening allies. 4. The guy doesn't like us as much as we don't lke him, and he did try to assasinate a President, so I suppose you could argue that it's whoever takes the other out first (a bit extreme this one) 5. human-right abuses and his Stalinist control over the people of Iraq. I actually think the humanitarian rationale is the strongest cause for intervention.
Now, You can certainly take issue with some of these things, but, to use a cliché, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. like I said, some of these reasons are a more valid concern than others, and some are less about a direct threat as they are the Right Thing to Do?.
[quote]Why is Saddam who used to be our friend in the 70's now the bad guy and we are talking to the country who was the enemy then ( Iran ).<hr></blockquote>
I would say that Iraq was never considered a friend, just that we had a common enemy. So while it would be fair to characterize the relationship as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," I don't think the expression should be taken too far. We were never "friends" like we are with France even.
[quote]Why does Bush feel this is so important that he must break with tradition and go in without the UN?<hr></blockquote>
Trying to read Bush's mind, I think he sees the threat of Iraq's weapons as being so immediate that a UN that dismisses these threats puts the US at a high risk against them. I'm not someone who thinks Saddam is going to bomb us with VX gas, but I do think he would pay someone else to do it, or sell them any weapons he has so they can do the dirty work. I think Bush just wants to know what happened to his weapons, and is willing to go to obviously aggressive measures to find out. Plus he probably feels like if they do leave Saddam in power, even if they do disclose all weapons to the inspectors, that he'll just make more. I think that's his motivation to have Hussein ousted as well, that finding out about weapns isn't enough -- not until the means and motivation for making them is gone too.
I think Tony Blair has been more vocal about the humanitarian mission to liberate Iraq, or at least he's been more eloquent. I feel like Bush sort of has that in his head, but in the back of his mind even though it's the strongest motivation for regime change.
[quote]Why is Bush doing this at a time of economic strife here at home?<hr></blockquote>
I think Bush sees the two issues as somewhat exclusive. I think he also thinks that not doing something now would hurt the conomy more in the long run -- more threats, more 9/11 type stuff if weapons do get out among terrorists, etc.
[quote]Why isn't he concentrating on that instead?<hr></blockquote>
I think Bush is concentrating on that too, just that his plans kind of stink. Tax breaks aren't economic incentives all by themselves (not mention who's getting the real breaks).
I could go on and the answer to some of these questions refer to each other. Since this isn't a pressing issue why doesn't Bush put it before the people who ( almost ) elected him? I think you already know the answer to that one.
These questions have been asked before on this board and I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer.
[quote]Anyone who isn't doing the job he was hired for should be let go.<hr></blockquote>
Despite what bunge claims, I thin that's more and more likely to happen in two years. The economy isn't picking up, it's treading water at best (good news and bad news seem to alternate), a lot of people have fallen out of favor of war without the UN's blessing, rather inept attempts at homeland security measures and preparedness, etc.
<strong>
It's just that most of your answers are crap.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry groverat but you didn't really answer the questions at all. Not really.
One example " He's not concentrating on that? Where do you get that idea? From his Medicaire and tax-cut proposals, or do those not exist? "
That has and will do nothing. Bush's threats of war have had more of an effect on the economy.
Like I said not satisfactory. Not that I think it's a justification but BuonRotto's answers are better than yours.
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>