Iraq War: Any Alternatives?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

AlDurr,

I’m surprised (and a little skeptical) that you are a registered Republican.

I want to point something out to you.

There can be no denying this fact.

George W. Bush received more votes than any American President IN HISTORY.

Read that sentence again.

He received 3,500,000 more votes than John Kerry.

I’ve seen one million people before. It was an absolute SEA OF PEOPLE.

3,500,000 is more people than many countries have.

Iraq was FRONT AND CENTER in the election debate.

You can try to change the subject. You can point fingers at other people. You can call Bush names.

The truth is this: Most of us looked at 9/11, made the connection between regimes who harbor terrorists, decided the risk of mad-men who invade allies/use chem/biological weapons on his/other nations/fire Scuds at allies/shoot at our planes was a risk that was unacceptable.

The President said after 9/11 that he was going to send a message to such regimes all over the world.

He sent the message.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and others are showing that the message was received loud and clear.

I hope I am being crystal clear.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

P.S. By the way, your antagonistic, no alternatives post, speaks volumes.

62

[quote]hedo wrote:
Al

Asking for alternatives is a very rational question to ask. The majority of the ABB crowd doesn’t actually have a clue what to do. They just feel whatever action the administration takes is wrong. Think Luddites.
[/quote]

hedo,

I don’t have an issue with a rational discussion about alternatives to the actions that are being taken by the current administration. The problem that I have is that the people who always asks these questions demonstrate time and time again that they don’t want a rational discussion. They want to yell and brow beat anyone that doesn’t completely agree with them. I will not engage in such an activity.

[quote]
Whining is not debate. If you don’t have an answer, perhaps those that whine ad nauseum should allow those that do to step forward. I speak in particular of the Democrats in congress. You can’t be against everything and for nothing.[/quote]

Whining happens from every viewpoint on this board. However, it only seems to be a problem when the people who are whining are not swallowing everything that the Bush Administration is dishing out hook, line and sinker.

Answers are being given all the time. The problem is that the people who are supposed to be listening are finding every excuse not to listen, but argue and discredit at every opportunity.

63

[quote]JeffR wrote:
AlDurr,

I’m surprised (and a little skeptical) that you are a registered Republican.
[/quote]

Wow, Big surprise that you feel this way…NOT! Just to let you know, I have been one for over 20 years. The reason that I am one is that I am fiscally conservative, but I am also socially moderate. However, due to my upbringing and experiences, I am skeptical of any politician regardless of their party affiliation. My intellegence and analytical ability doesn’t get checked at the door just because my party is in charge. I have seen more inconsistencies, double-talk and outright lies from this administration and the current crop of Republicans in control than I have seen since Nixon (Yes, I am old enough to remember him.).

Yes it is true that he received more votes than any president in history, but guess what? There are more people in this country than anytime in history. There were more registered voters than anytime in history. Therefore, it makes sense that he got more votes. Hell, John Kerry received more votes than any president in history too, but he still lost. This is what I mean by swallowing everything you hear. The fact of the matter is that it still comes out to 51% no matter how you massage the numbers.

Again, no kidding! We are in the middle of a war, so it makes sense that this would be front and center.

I never changed the subject. And, in fact, I said on another thread that Bush is a pretty smart and savvy guy. I said that I wasn’t going to give you the ammunition you so crave to feed you ego and your obvious need to feel superior at others expense.

Yes, you are being very clear. It’s scary that you have quoted the Karl Rove playbook to a “T”. If all these countries are harboring terrorists that threaten the US, and we have so much evidence of this, then why did we attack Iraq first? Could it be that they were the weakest link and thought to be easily controlled? It doesn’t hurt that they are “sitting on a sea of oil” (a quote from Dick Cheney himself). I never had a problem with attacking countries that are a true threat to the US. I have a problem using shaky intelligence work to justify it and then changing the reasons when they get caught in their mess. Yeah, yeah I know “it was rock solid at the time”. Was it really, or were we just being told that?

[quote]
P.S. By the way, your antagonistic, no alternatives post, speaks volumes.[/quote]

Your antagonistic, argumentive and juvenille attempts at making yourself feel superior while trying to step on others speaks volumes as well. I tell you what, leave me out of your crap and I’ll leave you out of mine. Remember, you called me, I didn’t call you.

64

Al Durr,

Thanks for the friendly post!!!

I’ll ask once again: If the Iraq War was a mistake, what should we have done about Saddam?

Again, a-b-c. If all you can come up with is: “We shouldn’t have invaded,” I hope your brain fills with a thunderous “AND WHAT WAS W. GOING TO DO ABOUT IRAQ!!??!!”

Remember, all major intelligence agencies pointed quite clearly to stockpiles. He shot at our planes nearly daily. He supported Palestinian terrorists/Al Qaeda, used his oil to bribe, murdered/tortured/gassed, fired unprovoked Scuds at our ally (Israel), invaded allies/neighbors.

You seemd to appreciate and understand crystal clear clarity.

You can berate the messenger (Bush) but you STILL haven’t offered an alternative.

Oh, remember how the voting trends were going? Fewer and fewer showed up to the polls.

Not this time, pal. People were MOTIVATED to vote for Bush.

What was front and center? Iraq.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

65

jeffy, look below, that is your ass being handed to you! To steal one of your beloved lines. Oh, and I wanted to say, I love you to, kinda like one would love a developmentally disabled child. (JK)

AlDurr, I agree this whole issue should be non partisan. Just judging the actions of those in charge.

66

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Al Durr,

Thanks for the friendly post!!!

I’ll ask once again: If the Iraq War was a mistake, what should we have done about Saddam?

Again, a-b-c. If all you can come up with is: “We shouldn’t have invaded,” I hope your brain fills with a thunderous “AND WHAT WAS W. GOING TO DO ABOUT IRAQ!!??!!”
[/quote]

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. It must really frustrate you when people don’t want to play your game.

All intelligence agencies pointed to many things that Bush didn’t do much of anything about: North Korea’s nuclear stockpiles, Osama Bin Ladin still running free, the genocide in Sudan (oh, that right, he did something after months and months of protests by Americans). Many of the other countries that you listed supported the Palestinian terrorist/Al Qaeda as well, so why didn’t we go after them? Because they thought they knew then we couldn’t beat them as easiliy as we thought we could beat Iraq.

By the way, did you know that the USA gives over $1 billion a year of our tax money in aid to Israel? The people in the middle east know that, and it pisses many of them off. I don’t know about you, but I think that the USA could use that money. If you don’t believe me, then ask why one of the biggest lobbyist groups is the one that supports money for Israel? That is a documented fact that many people aren’t aware of in the USA.

Yes I do, which is something that we do not get from this administration. All of the propaganda though, is crystal clear. It’s “don’t worry, be happy” all over again. I’m sorry, I don’t trust anybody that much.

You act like Bush is a bike messenger delivering FedEx packages. He started a war. And he used weak information that he and his cronies massaged to justify the invasion. Had he used better information, most people (not just the 51% that voted for him) would have had no problem with his actions.

[quote]
Oh, remember how the voting trends were going? Fewer and fewer showed up to the polls.

Not this time, pal. People were MOTIVATED to vote for Bush.

What was front and center? Iraq.

Thanks!!!

JeffR[/quote]

This is a weak point. I already said that more people turned out than ever to vote. People were motivated to vote for AND against Bush. I also said that we are in a war and it makes sense that it would be at the forefront of the election. What I am saying is that it wasn’t the landslide that everyone was trying to make it out to be. In other words, just tell the truth and stop inflating things to make them bigger than what they are.

67

Link to a great blogger who is currently serving in Iraq. Kind of a different perspective on things.

By the way this kid just won the Silver Star. They keep that quiet these days.

http://avengerredsix.blogspot.com

68

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
This is a weak point. I already said that more people turned out than ever to vote. People were motivated to vote for AND against Bush. I also said that we are in a war and it makes sense that it would be at the forefront of the election. What I am saying is that it wasn’t the landslide that everyone was trying to make it out to be. [/quote]

But it was the landslide that no one expected. Be it presidential, or congressional, conservatives kicked political ass. It must eat at your gut to know that americans shun your rhetoric in numbers not seen before in your lifetime.

The really scary thing for folks on the left side is that it won’t turn your way for a long, long time.

69

AlDurr,

I feel sorry for you.

You are trully bitter.

If you weren’t so vehement in your denunciations of everything the administration thinks, I’d wish this pain away.

However, you are. I want you to suffer for a while.

I hope it hasn’t escaped your attention that you really haven’t offered ANYTHING in the way of alternatives.

I’m serious. If Iraq was a mistake, then how to deal with the threat?

Given that the vast majority of people (including you and your beloved Democrats) firmly believed that Hussein was a real threat, what should Bush have done?

I’m hoping that if I ask you enough times, you can expand your thought process just enough to spit out an alternative.

OR, you just might eventually see just what a bunch of hypocritical harpies you and your party have become.

Sadly, I’ll bet you don’t pick up on either. That is why you’ll continue to lose ground as a party and an ideology. You just don’t offer anything reasonable.

Prove me wrong!!!

JeffR

P.S. In an age of decreased voter turnout and participation, winning more votes than any President is a remarkable achievement.

70

I say we pull out. I used to have the you break it you buy it attitude, but It’s going to take 50 to 100 years to fix. I would offer all Iraqies refugee status and allow any that would want to come here the right to (after thorough background checks).

The ones that stayed could fight it out without us. If it gets to bad over there and it becomes a terrorist hotbed, nuke the place and fuck the oil.

71

[quote]KevinKovach wrote:

The ones that stayed could fight it out without us. If it gets to bad over there and it becomes a terrorist hotbed, nuke the place and fuck the oil.

[/quote]

Never vote.

72

Yea, an Iranian and Syrian war too. That should change things up a bit.

73

[quote]By the way, your underlying message of “America the Imperialist” is laughable coming from an Englishman/woman.

YOU INVENTED THE WORD AND THE CONCEPT!!!

Read about 19th century Afghanistan/India etc… if you want to see how a true Imperialist power acts.

Get back to me when you’ve been schooled in your own history.

Thanks!!!

JeffR [/quote]
I was going to answer the OP then I saw this and decided to not waste my time. The stupidity in this quote above is too overwhelming. I am humbled by it. By it’s logic a german can’t speak out against genocide.

74

Jay Sherman,

Thanks for the kind post!!!

Greetings!!!

You wrote:
“I was going to answer the OP then I saw this and decided to not waste my time. The stupidity in this quote above is too overwhelming. I am humbled by it. By it’s logic a german can’t speak out against genocide.”

You are so wrong!!! I’ve been absolutely begging the Germans on this board to acknowledge the obvious comparisons between Saddam and Hitler. They both were maniacal murderers. I AM BEGGING THE GERMANS TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GENOCIDAL TENDENCIES OF SADDAM.

So far, my pals Makkun/hspder have waived off.

They know, that if they do, they will be forced to admit that our invasion of Iraq was a NOBLE effort.

They just can’t make that transition!!!

Again, welcome!!!

Love to hear your alternatives!!!

Attacking me isn’t offering an alternative.

I’ll bet you’ve got nothing of substance to add.

Prove me wrong!!!

JeffR

75

Jay Sherman,

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Jay Sherman,

Thanks for the kind post!!!

Greetings!!!

You wrote:
“I was going to answer the OP then I saw this and decided to not waste my time. The stupidity in this quote above is too overwhelming. I am humbled by it. By it’s logic a german can’t speak out against genocide.”[/quote]

Actually, JeffR thought at that point that I was English. :slight_smile:

Makkun

JeffR,

[quote]You are so wrong!!! I’ve been absolutely begging the Germans on this board to acknowledge the obvious comparisons between Saddam and Hitler. They both were maniacal murderers. I AM BEGGING THE GERMANS TO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE GENOCIDAL TENDENCIES OF SADDAM.

So far, my pals Makkun/hspder have waived off.[/quote]

I have waived off, as I think that “historical comparisons” in most cases are inaccurate. You should check my earlier posts in various threads in order to be relieved that I do speak out against Saddam’s dictatorship and its gruesome consequences.

[quote]They know, that if they do, they will be forced to admit that our invasion of Iraq was a NOBLE effort.

They just can’t make that transition!!![/quote]

Or “they” might not agree with your conclusions - or you must have overlooked what “we” said. I have, in various threads, pointed out that I think that the motives for the war might have well been noble - I just don’t think that the desired outcome (winning the war on terrorism) will be reached by the means chosen (attack on Iraq).[/quote]

Makkun

76

Makkun wrote:

“Actually, JeffR thought at that point that I was English. :-)”

I can’t believe I thought that!!!

After all, your name has England written across the bottom.

Silly me.

“I have waived off, as I think that “historical comparisons” in most cases are inaccurate. You should check my earlier posts in various threads in order to be relieved that I do speak out against Saddam’s dictatorship and its gruesome consequences.”

You do. However, you wrote a nice long article denying the comparisons between Hitler and Saddam. They are there. I don’t want to repost my response here.

“Or “they” might not agree with your conclusions - or you must have overlooked what “we” said. I have, in various threads, pointed out that I think that the motives for the war might have well been noble - I just don’t think that the desired outcome (winning the war on terrorism) will be reached by the means chosen (attack on Iraq).”

This is the first time I recall you giving the U.S. and their allies the benefit of the doubt. If I’ve missed it from your earlier posts, I sincerely apologize.

We can have a long discussion about whether the invasion of Iraq helps the overall fight on terrorism.

As you can imagine, I tend to agree that a functioning Democracy in the heart of that region does far more than propaganda or guns.

As an aside, I find you to be a very reasonable person. I’ve enjoyed our discussions. I have certainly learned quite a bit from them!!!

JeffR

77

JeffR,

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Makkun wrote:

“Actually, JeffR thought at that point that I was English. :-)”

I can’t believe I thought that!!!

After all, your name has England written across the bottom.

Silly me.[/quote]

That’s because I live there. Nice to be an EU citizen - I can move anywhere where I want. :slight_smile:

[quote]“I have waived off, as I think that “historical comparisons” in most cases are inaccurate. You should check my earlier posts in various threads in order to be relieved that I do speak out against Saddam’s dictatorship and its gruesome consequences.”

You do. However, you wrote a nice long article denying the comparisons between Hitler and Saddam. They are there. I don’t want to repost my response here.[/quote]

I know. And it still didn’t feel right. In hindsight I should perhaps have abstained from getting into the discussion in the first place, as I have de facto accepted the argument. Well, hell, I just can’t resist a discussion… :wink:

[quote]“Or “they” might not agree with your conclusions - or you must have overlooked what “we” said. I have, in various threads, pointed out that I think that the motives for the war might have well been noble - I just don’t think that the desired outcome (winning the war on terrorism) will be reached by the means chosen (attack on Iraq).”

This is the first time I recall you giving the U.S. and their allies the benefit of the doubt. If I’ve missed it from your earlier posts, I sincerely apologize.[/quote]

Well, as I have always stated, we have been allies for a long time - and still are. In principle, we stand for the same values and most of our goals are the same. Only lately there has been real friction - and I stand by my criticism of the current US administration’s measures. I think it is legitimate and necessary to criticise - especially when you take your role as an ally seriously.

[quote]We can have a long discussion about whether the invasion of Iraq helps the overall fight on terrorism.

As you can imagine, I tend to agree that a functioning Democracy in the heart of that region does far more than propaganda or guns.[/quote]

Off course will a functioning democracy be better in the long run - but I fear the collateral damage caused by the war may in the international political arena do a lot of harm. And already has.

[quote]As an aside, I find you to be a very reasonable person. I’ve enjoyed our discussions. I have certainly learned quite a bit from them!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Thanks. I’m having fun as well. :slight_smile:

Makkun

78

I am remis in my detailed, or lack of reading this thread, so flame me if you will.

Almost all conflicts, be they between 2 groups of co workers or to factions within a political party to 2 different countries tend to fight for the competition of resorces.

This may be land, may be personell or simply oil.

The rights and wrongs of this conflict are there in both sensible/intelligent and not so intelligent conversation and there are a great deal of people who are more informed than i.

The simple truth is that sadam was a menace, maybe no more than that. The west and in particular the us is highly dependant on oil from the middle east and has a high level of interest in the goings on in that area. This dependancy is now being mentioned in conjunction with topics around Keyoto.

Business allows us to have stable lives and safe ones at that. whether it was an evangelical attack on evil, or one that protects our financial and therefore social security is a little besides the point.

In the UK there was a blockade of a large% of petrol depots and distribution centres. It crippled the country. Imagine that on a world wide scale, and the nrest that would cause.

I didnt like the war. the hipocracy and falsehood that surrounds it is palpable, but i know that if it were i experiencing blackouts and petrol/food shortages, then i would have to admit, like we all surely are, to being a hippocrite.

79

Miniross-

I would extend your argument in that Nations as well as individuals tend to operate in their own self interest.

The US has an interest in preserving the peace and a steady supply of oil. We also respect human rights, including our own survival, that is why Sadaam had to go. It is a multi-facted problem.

I would take issue with your comments surrounding the war. The reasons were well documented. Nobody lied. We thought he had WMD’s…he didn’t, so be it. He would have had them and he did support terrorism. That’s good enough. Iran, Syria take note.

80

wrt support of terrorism, what would your comments be surrounding the alledged support of the IRA (provisional) during the past 30 years. It has been cited that support was drawn (although not solely) from US ex pats, including big business.

This is of course not essentially state sponsored terrorism, as is the case with syria but where would that line be drwan. Could the contras in (i hope i spell this correctly) nicuragua (spelt very badly!) provided for by the neo conservative administartion of regan be considered state terrorism…or is this a fine line from which the line blurred, or indeed which standpoint you take. (or as i think, cia in afghanistan)

“one mans freedom fighter is anothers terrorist”

Your thoughts…