Democrats don't like Republican wars...
... and Republicans don't like Democrat wars. We can all find exceptions to this rule but in recent years it has been largely true. Latest evidence: Howard Dean urges U.S. intervention in Liberia. This would seem to be inconsistent with Dean's position on Iraq. Dean says it's not because Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world. The obvious question arises, "And Liberia does?"
(This post should not be read to indicate my own opinion regarding the wisdom of an intervention in Liberia.)
(This post should not be read to indicate my own opinion regarding the wisdom of an intervention in Liberia.)
Comments
Last I heard Bush isn't against sending troops to Liberia so your general premise is incorrect. If Bush decides to support sending 2000 troops and then Dean reverses his support, then you might have a point.
As things stand, supporting sending 2000 troops to prevent a crisis is not at all related to sending tens of thousands of troops where probably 2000+ will ultimately die when all is said and done.
Originally posted by bunge
Your post makes no sense...
Yes it does but maybe you are unwilling to aknowledge Dean's hypocrisy.
Last I heard Bush isn't against sending troops to Liberia so your general premise is incorrect...
You haven't heard of anyone who opposes this? There are some who do and they are largely on the right. And Bush has yet to commit himself on the matter. If Bush does send troops, the rationale will largely mirror the arguments made on behalf of the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo (which were opposed by some leading Congressional Republicans).
As things stand, supporting sending 2000 troops to prevent a crisis is not at all related to sending tens of thousands of troops where probably 2000+ will ultimately die when all is said and done.
You have no idea what a Liberian intervention will entail. It's being sold as pretty much cost-free and maybe it will be. But at least let us be honest about what we will need to do. It will require the presence of US troops. Why? Because we will be choosing sides which means those on the other side will have a reason to not like us and maybe wage a guerilla war against us. Who knows how many casualties we'll take? Certainly not you. Maybe we should do this anyway. But it simply isn't a good idea to send our troops anywhere without first taking into account the dangers they'll face.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
... and Republicans don't like Democrat wars. We can all find exceptions to this rule but in recent years it has been largely true. Latest evidence: Howard Dean urges U.S. intervention in Liberia. This would seem to be inconsistent with Dean's position on Iraq. Dean says it's not because Bush never made the case that Iraq posed a threat to the world. The obvious question arises, "And Liberia does?"
(This post should not be read to indicate my own opinion regarding the wisdom of an intervention in Liberia.)
Saying that the action taken in Iraq and possible action to be taken in Liberia are equivalent is just right out nonsensical.
If we do go into Liberia, the reason for going in isn't likely to change fourteen times. There will be no ulterior motives (aside from wagging the dog away from the last episode of wagging the dog gone awry). It won't be to the same scale. No one can make a case it revolves around oil. There are no previous possible vendettas between our head of state and the head of state of Liberia.
Sorry. Doesn't quite work. It is entirely possible to be against war in Iraq but for sending troops to Liberia. You are just playing the role of the stereotypical republican attempting to discredit anything a democrat says. I'm so tired of these bullshit games between you two ****ing parties. GROW UP.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Yes it does but maybe you are unwilling to aknowledge Dean's hypocrisy.
You should try to spell it out more clearly then because, as BR states, your post is nonsensical. Or, as I stated, your post makes no sense.
Dean is way more liberal than his media-given "moderate" moniker. He is starting to come off as very Clinton-esque in terms of his preference in using the military. By this, he seems to want to intervene for humanitarian reasons and peacekeeping missions. He is opposed to large scale invasions with serious risk of casualties, it would seem (I'm being general of course).
My problem with these kind of missions is they tend to be open-ended and don't have clear goals. Some say the same about Iraq, but that remains to be seen. The goal was to topple Hussein and stabilize the country while establishing a new government. I give it two to three years for US presence. In Liberia, we'll have a small comittment of troops over an indefinite period of time (as we do in countless other places). This in itself isn't a problem...it's just that with all the troops we have in the rest of the world (on similar missions) it begins to stretch things a bit thin. Clinton was criticized for doing this and more so for using the military as a humanitarian organization. Dean may think the same way (which I'm making any judgements about today).
In summary though, it is odd that Dean, with his well known opposition to the Iraq war would support this. I suppose I understand, but there are others who are going to go after him on it. In the end it's not going to matter though, because Kerry is going ot get the nomination. The Dem leadership knows Dean is too liberal to win.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
my feelings were president bush was really keen on sending troups to liberia, but the pentagon said doing so would stretch our defenses to thin. three conflicts in the same general part of the world could leave us vulnerable if something goes down in asia.
Might be. But 2,000 troops isn't a lot for us. We have the military power to "do" North Korea right now if we wanted to.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Might be. But 2,000 troops isn't a lot for us. We have the military power to "do" North Korea right now if we wanted to.
it is a lot when you already have 2 operations ongoing.
hey, it's not my theory it's the pentagon's, it's not just troups being spread too thin, it's support and all that goes with it. we have too many balls in the air.
and by "doing" north korea, if you mean like we're "doing" iraq and "doing" afghanistan than i'd call it "don'ting".
He advocates sending troops in to end a human rights disaster in Liberia, but when it comes to a human rights disaster in Iraq...
Originally posted by groverat
Dean, who I will likely vote for in 2004...
Why?
Originally posted by groverat
Dean, who I will likely vote for in 2004, is being hypocritical here.
He advocates sending troops in to end a human rights disaster in Liberia, but when it comes to a human rights disaster in Iraq...
If Bush had come forward with a plan for Iraq to end a humanitarian crisis, Dean would have supported it. If Bush now comes forward with a plan to 'invade' Liberia and overthrow the government, Dean won't support it.
That's not hypocritical.
Originally posted by BR
Saying that the action taken in Iraq and possible action to be taken in Liberia are equivalent is just right out nonsensical.
I didn't say they were equivalent. They're not. I simply pointed out where Dean's enthusiasm for a Liberian intervention doesn't square with his disdain for the war in Iraq. He needs to develop a more serious argument that rationalizes his inconsistency.
... You are just playing the role of the stereotypical republican attempting to discredit anything a democrat says. I'm so tired of these bullshit games between you two ****ing parties. GROW UP.
I'm so tired of the holier than thou games of those who see anything a republican says as fitting some preconceived stereotype. As if everything Dean says should never be criticized - at least not by the likes of me. GROW UP.
Originally posted by bunge
If Bush had come forward with a plan for Iraq to end a humanitarian crisis, Dean would have supported it. If Bush now comes forward with a plan to 'invade' Liberia and overthrow the government, Dean won't support it.
That's not hypocritical.
Bush has ALREADY called for the overthrow of Liberia's government. He has said that Charles Taylor must go. Dean hasn't criticized Bush for this.
Originally posted by bunge
If Bush had come forward with a plan for Iraq to end a humanitarian crisis, Dean would have supported it. If Bush now comes forward with a plan to 'invade' Liberia and overthrow the government, Dean won't support it.
That's not hypocritical.
Wishful thinking, and pure speculation. I disagree. I don't think it mattered WHAT reasons Bush used...the Left would still oppose the war.
The only exception would be if Iraq had been proven to be directly behind 9/11. And you know what? We'd STILL have people (a lot of them) saying "No War for Oil". That's the Left for you. Dean is a hard core, pacifist liberal. He supports the troops in Liberia because that's the kind of military mission liberals support. Small or no committment of ground troops, minimal risk, indefinite missions and exit strategy.
The only Democrat (Pres. candidate) with a clue on national security is Joe Lieberman. He won't get the nomination. Neither will Dean.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wishful thinking, and pure speculation. I disagree. I don't think it mattered WHAT reasons Bush used...the Left would still oppose the war.
The only exception would be if Iraq had been proven to be directly behind 9/11. And you know what? We'd STILL have people (a lot of them) saying "No War for Oil". That's the Left for you. Dean is a hard core, pacifist liberal. He supports the troops in Liberia because that's the kind of military mission liberals support. Small or no committment of ground troops, minimal risk, indefinite missions and exit strategy.
The only Democrat (Pres. candidate) with a clue on national security is Joe Lieberman. He won't get the nomination. Neither will Dean.
We have the power to do N Korea now?
This is about the most childish ( Bush is drunk with power ) type of short sighted attitude I've heard from you yet! Attacking N. Korea right now without the support of China and Russia would be a disaster. This isn't some small country with little defense and weapons from the 60's. It's also in an area of the world potentially more volatile than the places where we have been fighting wars lately.
And how the hell do you know who's going to get the nomination?
It seems to me that lately ( the last 20 years ) it's the republicans that have been picking the safe targets.
But if you want a real war on our hands in a time when we can't even handle our own ecoonomic problems this is the place to do it.
Fortunately we're too close to election time and Bush's mishandling of things has already made it tough for himself without a dibacle of this magnitude.
God I love your world view ( or lack there of ).
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Bush has ALREADY called for the overthrow of Liberia's government. He has said that Charles Taylor must go. Dean hasn't criticized Bush for this.
Is that the type of force Dean is supporting be sent to Liberia? No. Your argument still makes no sense.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Dean...supports the troops in Liberia because that's the kind of military mission liberals support.
BLAMMO!
Tell it to Zaphod because he doesn't understand this.
Originally posted by jimmac
We have the power to do N Korea now?
This is about the most childish ( Bush is drunk with power ) type of short sighted attitude I've heard from you yet! Attacking N. Korea right now without the support of China and Russia would be a disaster. This isn't some small country with little defense and weapons from the 60's. It's also in an area of the world potentially more volatile than the places where we have been fighting wars lately.
And how the hell do you know who's going to get the nomination?
It seems to me that lately ( the last 20 years ) it's the republicans that have been picking the safe targets.
But if you want a real war on our hands in a time when we can't even handle our own ecoonomic problems this is the place to do it.
Fortunately we're too close to election time and Bush's mishandling of things has already made it tough for himself without a dibacle of this magnitude.
God I love your world view ( or lack there of ).
Wow. I never said I wanted a war in North Korea. Not at all. If its easier for you think of me as a one dimensional ultra-right facist then go ahead. It will strain your mental capcity less.
My point was that we could if we had too. It was a purely academic notion. We have the manpower and resources to do it. It would be a serious strain, but it could be done.
"Too close to election time and Bush's mishandling of things has already made it tough enough for him without a dibacle [sic] of this magnitude..".
Ohhh, and worldview! Labeling someone's worldview as inadequate or flawed is just another slimy debate tactic. Your whole premise for this post is that you think I want to attack North Korea...which is not true.
Now, wait! Wasn't it...hmmmm...THE LEFT that wanted to know why we WEREN'T taking on North Korea instead of Iraq?
EDIT: I forgot your question about the nomination. I wouldn't want to be accused of avoiding a question
I'm making a statement based on what I percieve to be likely. The national electorate leans conservative. Dean is too liberal. Mark my words. The Democrats know this. He'll probably finish second to Kerry or Gephardt. The leadership knows they can't go off the Left Coast Cliff....especially with such issues as national security and terrorism on the platform. And I'll come out and say it: Leiberman isn't going to get the nomination because he's a jew. I wish that wasn't the case. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I think he's a decent guy with a realistic view of national security issues. He also comes off as as whiner...which believe me, the public sees. If I voted for a democrat, it would be him, though. Unfortunately, there's too much anti-semitism out there for him to win the election. And can you imagine him brokering a Middle East Peace agreement? It's a serious problem for him.
Lost in all of this is the fact that the Democratic party is REALLY ****ed up right now. There is a huge amount of infighting (especially between Dean and MCCauliffe). Clinton brought the party more to the center. Now, there's a war between the extreme left elements and the centrists.
Bush, by contrast is running unopposed. You can make all the unsubstantiated claims about him alienating Republicans you want, but you'll be wrong. Bush will do what he did last time...unify his base (but moreso). The Republican machine is pretty well tuned right now and running on all cylinders. The Dem machine is still in the shop. That's the reality.
I'm not trying to bait you here, jimmac. I'm just trying to be realistic. Bush has a huge, huge advantage over a particularly weak democratic field.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. I never said I wanted a war in North Korea. Not at all. If its easier for you think of me as a one dimensional ultra-right facist then go ahead. It will strain your mental capcity less.
My point was that we could if we had too. It was a purely academic notion. We have the manpower and resources to do it. It would be a serious strain, but it could be done.
Ohhh, and worldview! Labeling someone's worldview as inadequate or flawed is just another slimy debate tactic. Your whole premise for this post is that you think I want to attack North Korea...which is not true.
Now, wait! Wasn't it...hmmmm...THE LEFT that wanted to know why we WEREN'T taking on North Korea instead of Iraq?
EDIT: I forgot your question about the nomination. I wouldn't want to be accused of avoiding a question
I'm making a statement based on what I percieve to be likely. The national electorate leans conservative. Dean is too liberal. Mark my words. The Democrats know this. He'll probably finish second to Kerry or Gephardt. The leadership knows they can't go off the Left Coast Cliff....especially with such issues as national security and terrorism on the platform. And I'll come out and say it: Leiberman isn't going to get the nomination because he's a jew. I wish that wasn't the case. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but I think he's a decent guy with a realistic view of national security issues. He also comes off as as whiner...which believe me, the public sees. If I voted for a democrat, it would be him, though. Unfortunately, there's too much anti-semitism out there for him to win the election. And can you imagine him brokering a Middle East Peace agreement? It's a serious problem for him.
Lost in all of this is the fact that the Democratic party is REALLY ****ed up right now. There is a huge amount of infighting (especially between Dean and MCCauliffe). Clinton brought the party more to the center. Now, there's a war between the extreme left elements and the centrists.
Bush, by contrast is running unopposed. You can make all the unsubstantiated claims about him alienating Republicans you want, but you'll be wrong. Bush will do what he did last time...unify his base (but moreso). The Republican machine is pretty well tuned right now and running on all cylinders. The Dem machine is still in the shop. That's the reality.
I'm not trying to bait you here, jimmac. I'm just trying to be realistic. Bush has a huge, huge advantage over a particularly weak democratic field.
Read the CNN poll I asked you to read and see what the people are saying!
Originally posted by bunge
BLAMMO!
Tell it to Zaphod because he doesn't understand this.
No, it only shows you didn't understand what I was saying. SDW did. As I wrote in a subsequent post:
If Bush does send troops, the rationale will largely mirror the arguments made on behalf of the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo...