[vuroth]

blackshoe, on Mar 19 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

Would anyone care to speculate what the world might be like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

Saddam and his sons would STILL be committing atrocities that make the current news stories out of Iraq seem tame by comparison.

Of course, the atrocities wouldn't be making the news, just like the ones going on in North Korea, Saudi Arabia and other places very seldom make the news.

We'd all feel better about ourselves.

V

[jtfanclub]

Yeah, that's it, we were just ignorant rednecks chortling about our dick size.
Thanks for clarifying that.

A lot of us realized just how horrible what we were doing to Iraq was prior to our invasion. Far more people, and far more children, died from our embargo than died from 2001 on. Keeping troops in Saudi Arabia wasn't helping matters for any of us either.

On the other hand, it was clear that we couldn't just walk away. Saddam was still being extremely beligerant, kicking out the inspectors, shooting at the overflight planes, and killing Kurds by the tens of thousands.

I knew there weren't WMDs. I wasn't against the war because of that. I was against the war because the we didn't have a plan for what came next. Ideally, we would have attacked Iraq with U.N. approval, then other nations would see to the rebuilding of Iraq (mostly Britain, France, Russia, and Indonesia) while our remaining contributions would be financial. This rush to get started before we knew what we were going to do when we finished was the sole reason I was opposed to the war. I think we could have gotten France and Russia on board had we spent more time and effort to do so, and had I been in charge I would have made it clear that if France and Russia would not support us, we would simply leave and plunge the Middle East into chaos.

For those that believed that Bush & Company had such a plan and simply had not shared it with us, and therefore supported the war, I admire their faith. I don't think that it's ignorant or redneck to believe that those you placed into a position are competent enough to execute it.

But now I'll leave you admiring your pale neck and crying about your dick size.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Saddam and his sons would STILL be committing atrocities that make the current news stories out of Iraq seem tame by comparison.

Is this statement meant to be a justification of the war?

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on Mar 20 2008, 12:32 AM, said:

kenberg, on Mar 19 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

We will never know.

With that much, I agree.

That said, it is also possible the world, and the US place in it, would be worse off than we are. But, as you say, we'll never know.

In November we will have an election. After that, someone else will be President, and we can bitch about that. Personally, I'd leave whether Bush was a good, bad, or indifferent President to late 21st or early 22nd century historians, and get on with trying to keep this "the greatest nation" — or make it so again.

"The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." — Senator Carl Shurz (1829-1906), remarks before the United States Senate, February 29th, 1872.

By late 21st century I will be long dead. Views of a president change with time and I guess you can say who knows how the future will view Mr. Bush. Or Mr. Clinton. Or etc. But we have to vote now and we have to do our best to evaluate how things have gone and who we should trust for the future. If late 21st century thinkers come to find greatness in Mr. Bush it would surprise me, but I won't be around then and their views won't help me now.

I recognize the presidency is a tough job and I take it as a given that whoever is in the office is doing what he thinks right. Maybe I am naive, but the idea that someone takes the job on in order to make himself or his friends rich strikes me as absurd. (btw, I wish my more conservative friends would allow this same possibility when they get apoplectic over Mr. Clinton.) It's just too tough a job to be used for that purpose. But. In a democracy we have to judge. I don't hold Mr. Bush to be evil, not at all, but I do regard the Bush presidency as largely a failure, and I think there were plenty of grounds for concern during the 2000 campaign. Not that Mr. Gore inspired great confidence either.

[PassedOut]

jtfanclub, on Mar 20 2008, 09:39 AM, said:

For those that believed that Bush & Company had such a plan and simply had not shared it with us, and therefore supported the war, I admire their faith.  I don't think that it's ignorant or redneck to believe that those you placed into a position are competent enough to execute it.

But perhaps we should depend more upon critical scrutiny than upon faith when electing our leaders.

Quote

March 20, 2008,  9:53 am
From Then to Now: Optimism Glints Amid Shades of Gray

By Ian Fisher

On a recent visit to Iraq, my first trip back in over three years, a few things surprised me. There was the “countdown calendar” to President Bush’s last day in office, sitting openly on a soldier’s desk. There was the high-up United States official who told me, by way of introduction, that he did not believe the decision to invade Iraq was “reality-based.” Before leaving to spend a few days with American troops, I worried about bringing along a book critical of the war. I shouldn’t have.

[luke warm]

hang on, the end is in sight... if obamba or clinton win, they'll end the war and bring the troops home - much like what happened when the dems took over both houses of congress

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 20 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

hang on, the end is in sight... if obamba or clinton win, they'll end the war and bring the troops home - much like what happened when the dems took over both houses of congress

Give me a break. Thats a ridiculous comment as you should very well know. You're either

1. Posturing
2. Trying to score cheap rhetorical points
3. so bleeding ignorant that no one should pay a lick of attention to what you have to say

Neither the House nor the Senate has the authority to order the troops back home. That decision belongs to the executive branch.

In theory, Congress could cut off funds to the troops in the field and try to use this to pressure the Administration. In practice, I don't know anyone who thinks that this is the right thing to do. Trying to use the power of the purse to force Bush to implement a troop draw down is insane. There is no popular support for this. it would fracture the Democratic party. Furthermore, i wouldn't trust the Bush Administration to be able to manage a troop draw down even if they wanted to...

For better or worse, we're stuck with Bush, Cheney, and the rest for another year. Come November we will (hopefully) elect a sane Commander in Chief and pick up more than a few Senate seats. If we're really lucky, the Bushies won't have started a shooting war with Iran....

For what its worth, while I am very much in favor of getting our asses out of Iraq I don't have any illusions that Obama or Clinto will be able to wave a magic wand and bring the troops home over night (or even in six months) It took years to build the troop level and armor up prior to the invasion. Its going to take at least as much time to withdraw. Personally, I think that its essential that pulling out of Iraq is organized and well managed.

What I do want to see (very quickly) is concrete steps that demonstrate that we are withdrawing and that we have no plans to establish permanent military based in Iraq.

[vuroth]

Winstonm, on Mar 20 2008, 09:44 AM, said:

Quote

Saddam and his sons would STILL be committing atrocities that make the current news stories out of Iraq seem tame by comparison.

Is this statement meant to be a justification of the war?

No.

[Al_U_Card]

Saddam came to power on his own (more or less) but he was propped up by the CIA after the Iran hostage situation. He was aided and abetted during his war with Iran and supported right until the Kuwaiti invasion. (That had repercussions regarding US presence in Saudi Arabia and oil, but suffice it to say that he didn't need much encouragement by then.)

The US power-brokers and war-mongers whet their apetites on places like that....and Panama and Grenada and Afghanistan and...and...and...

Wherever power can we wielded, it will be used and abused by those that make use of it....without fail nor hope of remonstration.

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Mar 20 2008, 03:31 PM, said:

Wherever power can we wielded, it will be used and abused by those that make use of it....without fail nor hope of remonstration.

then i guess it's a good thing you and i don't have any, eh? power that is

[kenberg]

luke warm, on Mar 20 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

hang on, the end is in sight... if obamba or clinton win, they'll end the war and bring the troops home - much like what happened when the dems took over both houses of congress

Uh, the end of what? The problems are not going away and neither are the troops, though they may be shifted around a bit. If "bringing the troops home" means not using military force in future disputes I seriously doubt that any American president will be following any such policy. If any candidate really contemplates such an approach I hope he will make that clear before November.

I have (often) said things about President Bush. I believe he mad a mess of it. I believe there is an enormous clean-up job to do. But announcing "Oops, sorry, we screwed up and we are now going home to lick our wounds" does not strike me as one of the better ideas. No I don't know what we should do, but I am hoping that I will be convinced by November that maybe someone can be trusted to assess the situation accurately and act in the best way possible. I promise you that I don't really care whether that someone is a Republican or a Democrat. Or black or white. Or man or woman. Or straight or gay for that matter, although the republic is probably not read for that discussion.


At any rate, the Democrats as the party of peace is a little off. President Roosevelt led us in WWII. President Truman dropped the bomb. President Kennedy took us to the brink of nuclear war in 1962. President Johnson took us into Viet Nam (I remember well his speech "I will not send American boys to to the job Asian boys are supposed to do"), President Clinton took us into the Balkans. I really don't hear the current candidates speaking of military restraint, only of drawing down in Iraq with mostly wishful thinking as a guide.


We need to judge who will use troops wisely. The person who will not use troops isn't on any ticket.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Mar 20 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

hang on, the end is in sight... if obamba or clinton win, they'll end the war and bring the troops home - much like what happened when the dems took over both houses of congress

I took this as satirical - and as such I agree.

It doesn't matter who wins what, which party, or the specific political goon - the money behind the throne will determine what will be done.

Quote

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.  - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Quote

Fascism is capitalism in decay - Vladimir Lenin

[kenberg]

Ha! You are no doubt right about the satirical nature. No one ever said I was subtle.

I need to read more carefully.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Mar 20 2008, 01:10 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 20 2008, 08:34 PM, said:

hang on, the end is in sight... if obamba or clinton win, they'll end the war and bring the troops home - much like what happened when the dems took over both houses of congress

Give me a break. Thats a ridiculous comment as you should very well know. You're either

1. Posturing
2. Trying to score cheap rhetorical points
3. so bleeding ignorant that no one should pay a lick of attention to what you have to say

hmmm, choices choices... i guess i'll go for # 3 and await the blinding brilliance of your insight & intelligence

Quote

Come November we will (hopefully) elect a sane Commander in Chief ...

"sane" being synonymous with "democrat" i take it? i wouldn't bet my hedge fund on it, i'd wait until obamba stops imploding and clinton stops doctoring her co-president resume`

winstonm said:

It doesn't matter who wins what, which party, or the specific political goon - the money behind the throne will determine what will be done.

and i think we have a winner