DrTeeth
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?
nbcrusader said:Does it really matter, or should we evaluate policy in a monday morning quarterback forum?
Macfistowannabe said:.
Most people outside my country have this hatred for Bush that is beyond me.
Macfistowannabe said:While I live in America and fear the draft, I think the world should be a lot more greatful of our country for the sacrifices we have made from the beginning of our history to the present.
Klaus said:Just take a look how disrespectful the current administration behaved against France - and remember that without them not only the Statue of liberty (which was designed as a symbol for the friendship between both countries) wouldn't exist but chances are high that todays USA would still be a UK-province.
How disrespectful the current administration behaved against France??? Well, why would we behave respectfully towards countries with officials that were bribed by Saddam Hussein to resist the U.S.?? The oil for food scam shows that Saddam paid almost 2 billion dollars to French officials.
ImOuttaControl said:
The statue of Liberty and UK-province example is completely irrelevant.
The Statue of Liberty was a gift in the 1880's
On the other hand in much more recent history, I seem to recall the U.S. being there to help Europe a couple times, then completely rebuild it and protect it from the Soviet Union.
How disrespectful the current administration behaved against France??? Well, why would we behave respectfully towards countries with officials that were bribed by Saddam Hussein to resist the U.S.??
The oil for food scam shows that Saddam paid almost 2 billion dollars to French officials.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041007-123838-3146r.htm
Perhaps if certian members of the U.N. security council hadn't been on Saddams payroll, there would be much more international cooperation in regards to Iraq.
Perhaps if the US government wasn't on the payroll of the INC, KDP, SCIRI, PUK, CMM and INA there wouldn't have bin a Iraq invasion at all?
So after all this time it's good that Saddam is gone, it's bad that Mr. Bush destroyed lots of credibility of the United states, it's bad that Mr Bushs work helped al-quaida more to recute new members than anything else since 9/11 and it's bad that they forgot about Pakistan, North Korea, Palestine and Iran.
paxetaurora said:
I don't believe he's a bad man. He seems to be a good person who loves his family and his country, .
DrTeeth said:If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?
DrTeeth said:If this administration had known what it knows now in terms of the CIA report and the present situation on the ground in Iraq, would they still have gone to war?
anitram said:I believe this administration would have gone to this war no matter what.
starsforu2 said:I found Klaus' rebuttal interesting, in part because there are some things I am not familiar with I.E.
I don't think that Al-quaida is hurting for recruitment reasons. They sent 19 people to their death on 9/11/01 and we weren't in Iraq then. I don't think that you can say that 3000 innocent people dying was justified because we have bases in Saudi Arabia or because we support Israel. That's all it took in 2001. But I don't think either of those things were wrong for us to do.
I don't think that Iraq is a diversion, because I think a US soldier has a much better chance defending himself in Iraq than my grandmother has in NY.
All of the other problem countries that you mention do not have the history that Iraq has.
If your position is that we needed to invade someone else before Iraq, then I ask who and why and why not diplomacy first?
Iraq was the one country that has continued to defy the UN Security Council, and the World. There are many people smarter than me, who believe that Iran will throw off it's current leadership without us invading.
There is also a belief that we can still negotiate with North Korea primarily with China's aid. (After all, it's their neighborhood and they are a world Power).
Palestine is primarily Israel's problem,
although we do step in from time to time to say stuff. Pakistan is worrisome, but at the moment seems to at least have a leader we can work with.
So, you and I both agree that the world is messed up, and we disagree about whether we are doing the right things to fix it. I would be curious about how we should proceed, because I have too often heard critique without solutions. I think we both want solutions and not just finger-pointing.
Thanks!
A_Wanderer said:They would not have gone to war if Saddam had nuclear weapons. If he had achieved that goal then he would be untouchable. Which is what the entire point of preemption is, to prevent that sort of situation ever arising and ensuring that American power can be preserved across the region with little threat to its interests.
starsforu2 said:I started down the path of point by point rebuttal, and sometimes even agreeing, but then I got tired.
I truly think that one of the primary differences in our view of the world is that I don't believe that Diplomacy always works. I think as rational human beings we propose, we argue, we find a place of agreement. When one party breaks a promise repeatedly, we can continue diplomacy, but eventually we end up at an or else scenario.
The UN, and the US passed that last resolution which said "Disarm, or else". He chose not to. If we had let him continue on his merry way, the message sent is to just ignore the UN, eventually they'll get bored or give up. So we had to move.
You also assume that he is a rational man. Or a truthful man. When playing any game, you go by a set of rules. The game plays well, until someone decides to cheat, or throw out the rules, or uses things that aren't even in the box. People need to realize that some people just won't play by the rules and to hamstring ourselves simply puts us in greater danger.
If you want an example look no further than Bill Clinton's attempts to employ diplomacy with Arafat and Kim Jong Il.
He assumed that if Israel was willing to put enough on the table Arafat would take it. It wasn't enough and never would be enough for him, because the terrorist groups who work in that region have one stated goal. The ELIMINATION of Israel. Not the establishment of a Palestinian country, or the pre-1967 borders. They want Israel dead. Since Oslo fell apart, the bombings have escalated far greater than in other times during Israel's existence.
In 1995 Bill Clinton agreed to give NK a Nuclear Plant in exchange for a promise to not pursue nuclear weapons. Well, we know how that is going today. You can't assume that everyone is going to play by your rules or your morality. You can give them the benefit of the doubt, but I think that if you see that they are willing to starve their people in order to attain power, they aren't worth brokering with.
Bill Clinton went into Bosnia unilaterally during his presidency, and we're still cleaning up there. The UN is still very much involved. I wonder if your problem isn't the action as it is the man who led it.