> I don't get why you guys all rip on Bush so much. This is his first term as president...

And in that period of time he has done an amazing amount of damage to this country and the world. It will take years to undo it. God help us all if he is elected again.

jheathco's right. If Bush had decided to invade Iraq right after 9/11 I beieve he would have had much more support than he's getting now. It would have been emotionally misguided support, but support nonetheless.
Still doesnt make it right though.

And on a side note those stupid fookin' flags everywhere really started to chap my hide after awhile. Especially the fabric ones that clipped to the rear windows. Made people look like friggin' diplomats or something. All self-righteous. After a month or so they were in tatters. People probably threw 'em in the trash eventually. Nothing better for a passing fad than the symbol of our country!

Sorry to ramble off topic. Uh... I still dont know what Blair's up to.
there we go...

After Desert Storm, I seem to remember there was a minority who wanted to continue until Saddam was out of power, but most people wanted to bring our boys back home, provided Iraq wasn't causing any more trouble. I was kinda young during this time, so if I'm incorrect in my recollection, feel free to correct me.

I don't think we would have gotten UN support to keep going once the primary objective (liberating Kuwait) was complete.

As for 1441, if you scroll up, you'll see that I plainly stated that Iraq is violating 1441 and the threat of force needs to be there to stop him. I just think that it's not time to USE that force yet. We need to get the rest of the UN on our side, and pass a resolution which puts a specific timetable on compliance, and a specific consequence of inaction, instead of the ridiculously vague "serious consequences" mentioned in 1441.

Yeah, I thought the flag thing was pretty lame too. I remember seeing a picture somewhere on the internet that was a bumper sticket that said "Bandwagon Patriot". I thought it was pretty funny, but you'd probably get your ass kicked for driving around with one on your bumper.

Tony,

I agree with everything you said in that last post. I hadn't read thru the entire thread (due to laziness). However, I do think now is the time to get in there. I just wish we could know how many civilian casualties to expect before hand (I'll keep wishing). If it's a very low number, I'd be all for war. The problem is that if we keep giving Saddam more time, he'll continue to manipulate us just like he has been. He thinks he's untouchable right now...

I don't get why you guys all rip on Bush so much. This is his first term as president... do you think he'd really do this (go to war) if it wasn't the best option?

No. But I believe that he thinks or has been led to think that this is the best option based not on the idea that Iraq is in violation of UN accords or that Hussein is a megalomaniacal dictator with a long-standing history of human rights violations, but that installing a friendly government in Iraq will be to the best interests of America, the rest of the world be damned.

Not only do I think that this sort of manifest destiny style thinking is morally aberrant, I think it's practically wrong, as it will bring down more violence upon our heads. Bin Laden has pretty much stated that the reasons that al Qaeda attacked the US was because of this very thing (mostly military bases in Saudi Arabia).

So I think that he thinks that it is the best option, but I completely disagree. In addition, his dissimilation to the world and the American public is hardly cause to gather 'round. As to it being his first term, he only gets two, so he has to be quick.

Remember the Sudentland when Chamberlien came back saying "peace in our time"? Boy was that a flop.

That's Sudetenland and Chamberlain.

Remember when Iraq invaded Kuwait and the UN, including the US, went and stopped him? Boy, was that a flop. (Apparently.)

My point is that we already did to Iraq what Chamberlain avoided doing to Germany. So I don't see the parallel.

I can guarantee that if we set the clocks back to September 12th, we'd be going to war with Iraq in a heartbeat, and no one would disagree.

I would, as there was no evidence then and there's no evidence now that Iraq had anything to do with that attack. At the time, I found myself surprised to be well impressed with Bush's reasoned attack against Afghanistan. Evidence was there; it wasn't forced or rushed. All of which goes to cast more doubt on the current affair. If he was able to come up with convincing and damning evidence then, why is he unable to do so now?

Next time I'll study for my spelling quiz

Well, I for one really wouldn't care what his true motives are. American democracy is a lot better than what they have now, but of course that's not reason enough to invade.

there was no evidence then and there's no evidence now that Iraq had anything to do with that attack

Exactly. There's absolutely no corrolation between the two. The "war" on Irag is a total off-shoot from the war on terror, and has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, IMO.

and obviously this is not something that's going to get him re-elected (unless of course it turns out to have been the best thing).

Um, you basically answered your own statement there, but I'll explain my point anyway. The Bush administration was relatively successful in Afganistan. They didn't eliminate all of Al Queda, but they did overthrow the Taliban, which I consider a victory. Like Bitt, I was suprised to be impressed with Bush's reaction to the situation. I also thought his father handled the beginning of the Gulf war well.

Once that settled down, what's in the news? Corporate responsibility. The public see that the big companies are screwing up. Then the economy goes in the toilet. What are you going to do if you're the administration? Anything you can! Sure, now it may look like this war won't get him re-elected, but you know, hindsight and all. And who knows, it could still work for him.

Sometimes I half joke that this is why the war is dragging out so very much. Nothing seems to be happening. I say that he'll try to extend it through the election

As for the idea about it being his first term, I would consider one of his goals to be getting re-elected... or maybe he just wants to screw over our nation and leave office after his first term?

I don't get why you guys all rip on Bush so much.

If he could speak well, there'd be even less to make fun of. Don't give me that "if the camera were on you all the time, you'd make mistakes." Screw that, of course I would! But we've had plenty of presidents who could speak in public.

I just think he's not that bright.

Dignan, what about the fact that the Iraq regime has been known to give money to terrorists, including al Qaeda?

Bush probably isn't that bright, but he's got a ton of bright people working behind him. I, for one, consider him to be a moral man, unlike many of the presidents before him.

American democracy is a lot better than what they have now

Check back in a month or two to see what American Democracy is trading at. It has been downgraded by a fair number of market analysts...

We didn't know anything about that right after September 11th, and the connection wasn't close enough. They weren't in the country at the time, and there were plenty of other contributors that were worse, namely Saudi Arabia.

So I think that if we all woke up on September 12th and Bush says "we're invading Iraq," we'd all wonder why. There were and still are more immediate threats.

I, for one, consider him to be a moral man, unlike many of the presidents before him.

Wooooooah. Okay, that's a very tough one. Morals is a very tough subject. Hell, I'm taking a whole ethics class this semester, and deciding what is right and wrong, especially in relation to the leaders of nations, is a tough subject.

However, I would say that Texas death row inmates and the Alaskan wildlife would disagree with you. I understand you're relating to, perhaps, the indescretions of a certain lawyer from Arkansas, but I'm just sayin', is all

. . .[Bush thinks that] installing a friendly government in Iraq will be to the best interests of America, the rest of the world be damned.

I'd agree with you that this isn't a good attitude. If Bush really wants Iraq only so we can install our own kind of Government, I wouldn't support him in this. I've said before that I think Bush's reason for going after Hussein is because he believes that Hussein . . . is a megalomaniacal dictator with a long-standing history of human rights violations . . .

I'm from Texas and I had no problem with Bush as our Governer. As a fairly conservative Christian, my ideas tend to line up with what I've heard him say. I've never heard or seen anything that led me to believe he has this manifest destiny attitude of which you accuse him. If you can provide it, however, I'd like to see solid evidence that what you say is true. I'll admit that Bush thinks the U.S. is the greatest nation on the earth. With that he also believes that our nation carries some powerful responsibilities that require action, sometimes even war. But all of this is still different from invading a region with the express purpose of spreading democracy.

Texas death row inmates

What's that got to do with anything? People on death row are there to die, not to be supported by the system for the rest of their natural lives, all at taxpayer cost. Death Rowers were sent there by a jury of their peers after a fair trial for a horrible and violent crime. I wonder what the murder rate would be if the death penalty were actually enforced more often. Unfortunately, due to court and lawyer costs, it is far more expensive to execute a convicted felon than it is to support one for the rest of his life, so it doesn't happen often.

To broaden my own horizons I watched some Parliament coverage on Cspan this evening.
Blair looked a little frazzled, but he seemed to hold up OK.
What he kept repeating to his opposition is that the major concern with Hussein is not just the fact that he has or had WMD and that he might use them against us/them, but that he has the potential to sell/give them to terrorists. And that based on his past history, and his predilection for anti-social behavior this is a very real possiblilty.
I guess that kind-a makes sense, doesnt it?
I'm still not for war, but I could see where he's coming from. To sum it up in a sentence, Bush and Blair are worried about WMD falling into the wrong hands. They view Hussein not as a direct threat but as an indirect one.
OK, two sentences. I'm probably over-simplifying, but it really hadnt occurred to me that way.

Somebody else brought up something that I didnt know though. Apparently Bush has offered some post-iraq-war rebuild contracts to Cheney's buddies at Haliburton over similar companies in the EU. This ticked off somebody in parliament and they called Blair on it. I cant remember his response though. Does seem kind of shitty, but not altogether unsurprising.

I was hoping to imply that some of them might not belong there, and that your interpretation of Bush's morals depends on whether or not you believe in things like capital punishment.

Basically, morals are personal things. He considers Bush to be more moral than past presidents, and I don't fully agree. But that's just me.

Blair looked a little frazzled

I couldn't help but enjoy this bit (from the Guardian):

"There you are, if you're Tony Blair, up that well-known creek without a paddle. Then you hear a roaring noise behind you, and it's a speedboat, a Rumsfeld Mk 1, which races past you at 40 knots, creating a 10ft wake, slopping brown fluid all over you".

The Guardian piece mentions the lack of leadership alternatives and the notion that other politicians are becoming reconciled to Blair's certainty, but, if the degee of support for war in the UK is as low as it seems, I have a prediction: Blair is toast. Yes, even if we are shocked to find more aluminum tubes -- thousands of them! -- under the bogies of our unilaterally triumphant tanks, I think Blair is toast.

now it may look like this war won't get him re-elected, but you know, hindsight and all. And who knows, it could still work for him

Uggghhh - horrible memories of Margaret Thatcher getting re-elected after our war (cough) with Argentina. Horrible Horrible era.

However, I would say that Texas death row inmates and the Alaskan wildlife would disagree with you. I understand you're relating to, perhaps, the indescretions of a certain lawyer from Arkansas, but I'm just sayin', is all

I would humbly suggest that getting a gobble in the Oval office is considerably less immoral than invading another nation, just so you can give the rebuilding contract to your buddies.

... just so you can give the rebuilding contract to your buddies

Ok...let's not be stupid here. Even a simpleton knows that that is not the reason Bush is trying to remove Sadaam's regime.

what about the fact that the Iraq regime has been known to give money to terrorists, including al Qaeda?

While it's true that he has given moeny to terrorists, the only instance I can think of is his martyr pay for Palestinian suicide bombers' families, and that probably has to do with him wanting to look like more of a devout Muslim (which he's not, and has been ripped for in the Islamic community), so that he can get support from the rest of the Islamic Middle East. There are probably others, too. However, I have not seen any piece of evidence that he supported al Qaeda in any way, and I doubt that it happened because bin Laden is opposed to Hussein, as he represents the largest secular government in the Middle East, which is largely what he's opposed to.

maybe he just wants to screw over our nation and leave office after his first term?

I don't think that he thinks that he's screwing over the US. I think that he thinks that he's doing the right thing. I think he thinks that installing US hegemony in the Middle East would be beneficial for the US. Regardless of whether it is or not, I believe that it is wrong to impose your beliefs on someone else, which is what this action I posit he's making is. In addition, I don't believe that it's beneficial, as it's more likely to piss off more people while installing a new government, a process with which the US does not have a good track record.

I've never heard or seen anything that led me to believe he has this manifest destiny attitude of which you accuse him. If you can provide it, however, I'd like to see solid evidence that what you say is true.

Please read the And You Thought Bush Was Bad thread.

I think that he thinks that he's doing the right thing. I think he thinks that installing US hegemony in the Middle East would be beneficial for the US. Regardless of whether it is or not, I believe that it is wrong to impose your beliefs on someone else, which is what this action I posit he's making is. In addition, I don't believe that it's beneficial, as it's more likely to piss off more people while installing a new government, a process with which the US does not have a good track record.

Preach it, brother!

Peter

I have read that thread, though I haven't made it all the way through the article you referenced. So far I haven't seen the evidence to be as compelling as you make out, though I might just not be "getting it". As near as I could tell, that article seemed to say that the U.S. needs to bolster it's armed forces, not start overthrowing countries in an effort to promote Democracy. Even if it does say that (which it might, since I haven't finished it yet), I still don't see that being directly related to Bush.

Well, it doesn't come right out and say ``Attack Iraq now! Yee-haw!'', my interlineal reading pretty much does. In addition, it does pretty much explicitly encourage it. Maybe not in so many words, but pretty much.

As to its relationship to Bush, examine the list of people who sent it to Clinton back in 1998 and compare it to the members of the Bush administration. Then examine the list of people that are members of the organization that produced it and compare.

There's a big difference between what was written then and what is going on now. Now that those people are in a position of power, they have to answer to the American people. Back then, they were just part of a think tank, writing papers that would hopefully influence others. Now they're the decision-makers. Regardless of how conservative their views are, they are held accountable for their policies, and mainstream America (and indeed, the rest of the world) wouldn't support a policy of an American takeover of the Middle East. Even if these people have those ideas in their head, they're clearly not going to execute them knowing the country won't support them.

Really, this document was just an appeal for more defense spending. Let's not get carried away here.

I hope you're right, but I don't think that you are.

If you examine those people, you'll find that many of them were in positions of power before and during that time.

If you examine those people, you'll find that many of them were in positions of power before and during that time.

If you're trying to tell me that any right-wing conservative had a legitimate position of influence over military policy during the Clinton era, I would love to see your case.