Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine / What Bush Got Right - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-07-2005, 01:38 PM   #1
War Child
 
learn2kneel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In the headlights of a stretch car...
Posts: 855
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine / What Bush Got Right

These are headline stories on the Time and Newsweek magazine I got today. Apparently, both magzines have changed (or refined) their views on the Iraq War, and are coming to the conclusion that perhaps Bush was right. I took some quotes from the articles that I thought summed them up pretty well.

TIME

"Change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq."

Bush "may have been right" - Daniel Shorr (a critic of Bush's foreign policy)

"I was cynical of Iraq. but when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world....The Berlin wall has fallen. We can see that" - Lebanese leader Walid Jumblatt

"it was the America's overthrow of Sadaam's republic of fear that gave to the Iraqi people space and air and the very possibilty of expressing courage."

"It was not people power that set this in motion. It was American power. People power followed"

"Turns out critics, liberal and "realist' got the Arab street wrong....its (Iraqi and Lebanon's) leaders now openly point to American example and American intervention as having provided the opening for this first tentative venture in freedom."

NEWSWEEK

"Across New York, L.A., and Chicago--and probably Europe and Asia as well--people are nervously asking themselves a question: 'Could Bush possibly have been right?' The short answer is yes. Whether or not Bush deserves credit for everything that is happening in the Middle East, he has been fundamentally right about some big things."
--this quote above somes up the article nicely--

(Sidenote - none of these quotes are not taken out of context)


The Time aticle shows that even Jon Stewart is questioning his view on Bush and the Iraq War. What are your thoughts on these new developments.
__________________

__________________
learn2kneel is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 01:49 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:50 PM
I think that all of these organisations are opportunistic ~ there have been significant changes but these do not mean that everything has been vindicated. I have held the opinion that the liberation of Iraq would be a catalyst for great change in the ME and it appears to be, these clowns play up whatever side of the story sells the most papers or gets the most jokes ~ it will be more interesting to read textbooks 30 years from now on the matter.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 01:56 PM   #3
War Child
 
learn2kneel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In the headlights of a stretch car...
Posts: 855
Local Time: 11:50 PM
The newsweek article mentions that the way we look back on these events will be determined by the success of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, "if they are thriving countries with modern political and economic systems, America will be honored and respected--and all talk of anit-American terror will have dissipated considerably." It also mentions America will be the blame if the countries are chaosed and troubled but for now it says that "the signs of bush's second term are heartening"
__________________
learn2kneel is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 03:13 PM   #4
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Everyone here is familiar with my pessimism about the Middle East and democracy, but, hey, I'll be thrilled to be wrong about this. I hate dictatorships as much as anyone; it's not that I like these authoritarian governments, far from it, they are fd up. If indeed these governments and unjust social structures aren't as entrenched as I've thought and they are on their way to getting their asses kicked out of there I certainly won't complain. I'm still opposed to Bush's domestic policies so I won't be changing my voting habits anytime soon, but I'd be delighted if a few really good democracies developed over there. Maybe a cure for pessimism has been invented! Nothing wrong with that.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-07-2005, 10:17 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:50 AM
I don't think anyone here is going to say that the fall of Saddam was a bad thing, but the debate is heated on whether the lives costed to accomplish it - and the reasons for going in there - were worth it. I would only hope that the most cynical over the effort are in fact wrong, and we succeed in establishing a peaceful civilization. Whatever the gripe about invading Iraq - that's something we can't exactly take back. It's already been done, and the president does not have a time machine. I think whether or not we supported the invasion should have little to no influence on whether or not we can support a new Iraq.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 03-08-2005, 11:17 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
I don't think anyone here is going to say that the fall of Saddam was a bad thing, but the debate is heated on whether the lives costed to accomplish it - and the reasons for going in there - were worth it. I would only hope that the most cynical over the effort are in fact wrong, and we succeed in establishing a peaceful civilization. Whatever the gripe about invading Iraq - that's something we can't exactly take back. It's already been done, and the president does not have a time machine. I think whether or not we supported the invasion should have little to no influence on whether or not we can support a new Iraq.
I agree. The invasion is a done deal, we have to finish what we started. I opposed the invasion in 2003, but if democracy really takes hold in Iraq then the whole area will be under all sorts of pressure to at least liberalize their human rights situations, if not grant outright democracy, and that's a very positive development. Now if the Saudis would just let women vote.............there are some very brave sisters in that country who've been raising hell about giving women basic rights, more power to them. At any rate this is certainly a wonderful development and I'm pleased. This could really really make the world a safer place because the forces of democracy will kick the asses of those terrorists in Iraq and they won't have any more power. Here's hoping....................
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-19-2005, 08:20 PM   #7
Anu
Editor
 
Anu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: There ain't no place I'd rather be, baby won't you carry me back to Tennessee
Posts: 1,695
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Every day we are "over there," more Iraqis and Americans die unnecesarily because of "our" actions; that wasn't wrong only two years ago.
The primary "terrorists in Iraq" are the invaders and their puppets. People defending themselves against occupiers are not terrorists. (not necessarily saying all the resisters are not terrorists or using terrorist tacticw
If, for example, I was in favor of keeping Terry Schiavo on her food (which I am not), I would not accept the logic (as none of her supporters do today) that "Well, she's already off the tube now, so deal with it."
love, Anu
__________________
Stand up to rock stars!
Anu is offline  
Old 03-21-2005, 10:25 PM   #8
War Child
 
learn2kneel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In the headlights of a stretch car...
Posts: 855
Local Time: 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anu
Every day we are "over there," more Iraqis and Americans die unnecesarily because of "our" actions; that wasn't wrong only two years ago.
The primary "terrorists in Iraq" are the invaders and their puppets. People defending themselves against occupiers are not terrorists. (not necessarily saying all the resisters are not terrorists or using terrorist tacticw
If, for example, I was in favor of keeping Terry Schiavo on her food (which I am not), I would not accept the logic (as none of her supporters do today) that "Well, she's already off the tube now, so deal with it."
love, Anu
These statements don't really apply to the article and don't make that much sense to me. Your saying that if you disagreed with the war two years ago that because it's already happened doesn't make it right. (I had to reread the analogy a few times to even get that).
The point is that democracy is spreading all over the middle east because of Bush's actions in Iraq. In Lebanon, Egypt, Syria - the steps are being taken towards freedom and democracy, and the countries are citing America's involvement as the reason for this. TIME and NEWSWEEK are saying that this proves that Bush was right when he went into Iraq and that the Bush Doctrine is starting to work. Iraq as a whole are not defending themselves against America, they and other Middle eastern countries are beginning to embrace their freedom. If you still think by doing this America are acting as terrorists, I'd like to know why? And instead of thinking about how many people died in the war, think about how many people will be able to live and live free because of the war.
__________________
learn2kneel is offline  
Old 03-22-2005, 12:38 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Instead of concentrating only on how many peopled died in the war look at how many were dying in the peace.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-14-2005, 07:15 AM   #10
War Child
 
NYRangers78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: THE BRONX NEW YORK GOD BLESS AMERICA
Posts: 540
Local Time: 11:50 PM
i was listening to a radio program where a man from iraq who fled saddams regime was telling this college student against the war that sure there will be bloodshed during the war. but there was much more bloodshed during saddams reign and there wouldve continued to be more if he was left in power. and after reading about the iraq un oil for food scandal. im convinced that after 16 resolutions, the us needed to do something and gave saddam 48 hours to leave iraq peacefully. bush gave the un every opportunity to help and get this done. but they couldnt because kofi and his son and france and germany were benefitting from the oil for food scandal. bush eventually did get un consent for the war, something most people forget to mention. for every person criticzing the war, there are thousands of decent law abiding muslims in the middle east who welcome the us's intervention in iraq. ill take that iraqis guys opinion over the war more to heart than some brainwashed liberal college student who hasnt experinced anything like living under that horrible regime. we are not invaders....we are liberators. sure bush made a mistake and went in because of wmds. but that was the info given from russian and english intelligence. if theyre intelligence had turned out to be right, and bush had done nothing and not preempted it, who knows what wouldve happened?? im sure liberation in iraq and afghanistan is something that bono and many would have to applaud. even if it wasnt gone about in the way they wouldve liked. i also think that some people let their hatred of bush or america get in the way of things sometimes. america does more for tthe whole world than all other countries combined. was the hatred for america and bush like this for clinton when clinton bombed baghdad in 98 with out un consent to get peoples minds off his affair with lewinsky? if so i dont remember it. i guess because a democrat was president. i also wonder if all this had happened under clinton, would everyone be hating him like they do bush? wait, it wouldnt have happened because we didnt do anything after the first 93 wtc attack that happened with my sister in the building, or after the uss cole was bombed.

im not looking to argue with anyone here or put anyones ideas down...to each his own.
__________________
NYRangers78 is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 06:41 AM   #11
The Fly
 
earthshell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Local Time: 04:50 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Instead of concentrating only on how many peopled died in the war look at how many were dying in the peace.
the war victims will pass that number before you know it.
__________________
earthshell is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 01:57 PM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:50 PM
Really, all those hundreds of thousands of bodies dug up from the desert sands and the other hundreds of thousands who died under Saddam's corruption of sanctions will be beaten at war victim figures that stand at around 20,000 right now.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 02:10 PM   #13
The Fly
 
earthshell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 282
Local Time: 04:50 AM
you aren't counting the civilian death toll apparently, or using twisted figures. there have been over 100,000 of them in this unnecessary war. bush is lucky to be re-elected, and it would not have happened without all the war-mongers in this country.
__________________
earthshell is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 02:14 PM   #14
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 02:50 PM
No, you are citing a twisted figure used in a lancet survey that applied an epidemilogical statistic method to war casualties and did a cluster survey of deaths that gave extremely far out results, the 95% CI of that survey was 8000 to 195,000 ~ the survey was 95% sure that casualties were between 8,000 and 195,000, the 100,000 figure was announced by just splitting the difference. Even the upper band of that inflated set of figures is less than those murdered by Saddam.

Check out these links for more.

www.iraqbodycount.net

www.massgraves.info

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_i...1133930628B262

http://www.kurdishmedia.com/news.asp?id=6596

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

Read the last article, it outlines the problems with the Lancet survey which appears to have become an article of faith in certain circles.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 04-19-2005, 11:15 PM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 08:50 PM
Quote:
Iraqi Lawmakers Demand Apology From U.S.


By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi lawmakers adjourned in protest Tuesday and demanded an apology after a Shiite legislator linked to a radical anti-American cleric tearfully said he was handcuffed and humiliated at a U.S. checkpoint.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com