Lumpy…you have been weighed…measured…and found WANTING in your arguments. I realize you hate the USA and you hate freedom and decency…YOU are not changing any minds here…feel FREE to go away…
You guys can’t really like George Bush after all of his lies and bullshit has gotten so many Americans killed can you?
Why do you guys jump behind Democrats or Republicans like you were rooting for your favorite sports team? Don’t any of you give a shit about the issues? Is there anyone out there like me who is not affiliated with a party and votes according to his or her ideals?
Big Dave,
“Is there anyone out there like me who is not affiliated with a party and votes according to his or her ideals?”
Me. And I supported the war in Iraq for reasons which had nothing to do with WMD: Iraq breaking its armistice agreement with us, making meaningless the contracts that suspend war before one side is ground into dust; Iraq being the only country in the world that regularly engaged our armed forces with relative impunity; at least 3500-4000 Iraqi children a month under the age of 5 DYING NEEDLESSLY under OUR sanctions; and the war against fascism, defeating this regime that had become the hero of Islamofascists for defying the United States of America.
On his Senate Committee, John Kerry saw the classified intelligence report that provided the dissenting view about WMD. Yet he voted for the War. Furthermore, Kerry voted AGAINST the bill that would have made the President go to the world community and then come back to the Senate for permission before using military force.
So Big Dave, there’s plenty to talk about when it comes to Bush’s case for War. He made a three-pronged case of human rights, material breach and WMD possession but definitely tried to spin the intelligence data to underscore WMD. However, John Kerry has shown us independents that he is not the man to raise your questions.
I’ll agree there was reason to fight the war in Iraq, but WMD wasn’t it and Bush and his administration using WMD as a reason destroys his credibility with me and the international community. If you are going to go to war where many will die you damn well be be able to take the high moral ground and going to war on false pretenses aint it.
Have you ever read the rantings of Bernard Lewis? His ideals and the silver-tounge of Ahmed Chalabi are the reasons Wolfowitz and Cheney decided to go to war. There may have been good reason but neither Bush’s stated goal or real goal was worth pursuing. Bernard Lewis has been preaching that causing change via military force would change the Middle East for the better. But as much as I hate tyrants like Saddam, there is no exact science for instigating democratic reform in a region that doesn’t feel we have much credibility. Bernard Lewis may have some good observations but his views in practice don’t take the dynamic of humanity into account. Just ask the Isrealis how well Lewis’s concepts worked for them in Lebanon.
hey ptr… what’s up with calling dems stupidcrats and me and a couple of people dogs when no one really said anything to you…
this is what kills me… in previous discussions with you, you claim to be so religious and you mentioned that god is such a big factor in your life… let me throw one back at you… “what would jesus do?” would he go around calling people stupidcrats and dogs of hate? it’s sad how self-proclaimed “religous” people (esp those that claim the bible comes from god word for word) don’t always go by the good ol’ book.
happy valentines day to all the ladies.
Big Dave, not to get too much into it a tangent but if you read Bernard Lewis’ articles on the question of a military invasion of Iraq, he doesn’t actually say it would be a successful venture, or emphatically recommend it. He says of the approach of overthrowing a tyranny and starting a democracy in the Middle East, that it may be better than just maintaining the volatile status quo, IF the U.S. has the stomach and focus to do it “right” (by which he means his way to the letter). He then gives a short list of countries where this might work. Iraq is up on the top, but he didn’t have Cheney’s optimism about our reception by Iraqis. And the consensus view now is that the Israeli campaign in Lebanon (including the way they withdrew) was disastrous because they DIDN’T listen to Lewis. Anyway, from my limited reading of Lewis, it’s a misinterpretation to say that his work simply endorses military occupation or invasion of Arab countries. Lewis once gave a dictum about U.S. involvement in the Middle East: “Get tough or get out.” He meant that we should consider isolationism if we aren’t prepared to play according to their rules; and when we do dialogue with the region, not to surrender our cultural convictions, and always to negotiate from a position of strength.
As far as the spread-democracy motive, you got to give the Bush administration a pass for not being transparent with that. This kind of delicate foreign policy initiative you HAVE to smuggle into your subtext at first when making your case in front of the world community. When the administration got behind tyranny and gross human rights violations as part of their argument for war (particularly last February), this said to everybody, “we will try to replace the regime with government closer to our system,” and with the rest of region as it is, that of course says it all. Every congressman who voted knew this was part of the administration’s plan. But, as I said, I do agree with you that the WMD case he made was weak.
…
“Big Dave” from the song “Miller’s Cave”?
Kerry was one of the guys that stood up for Clinton when it came out that he was a ?draft dodger?, now he wants to make a big deal out of Bush?s Service. Kerry also stated many times that Iraq was a threat and had WMD, and now he doesn?t. I don?t trust him.
Me Solomon Grundy