I truly respect your point of view. But I also believe that you are close minded to the possibilty that THIS President may be right. Don't take yourself so far out on that limb that you find it impossible to make it back if your opinions turn out to be, figuratively, in left field. Your opposition to this conflict to depose a man who possesses, and has used weapons of mass destruction is questionable to say the least. Hussain is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of 100s of thousands of innocent people. He has started wars with 2 of his neighbors. He will never stop his pursuit of mass terror or nuclear weapons. He will, one day, pass that technology to those who WILL do us harm. This war will set free 22 million people. Would you have opposed the civil war because it might cause death and harm. NO, because it was the right and moral thing to do. Why would you argue against a conflict that will set 22 million people free. The vociferious opposition of Irish-Americans and German-Americans, trade unionist and socialist helped delay the U.S. entry into World War 1 and thereby prolonged the killing of that war. If the advice of hawks like Teddy Roosevelt had been heeded, earlier US entry would have shortened the war and saved lives. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich in 1938 declaring that he had delievered "peace in our time" he was greeted by cheering throngs. Across the Atlantic, America First Committtee mobilized more than 800,000 people to keep the United States out of the war. It was this weakness that encoraged Hitler and Tojo toward the very aggression that the peace crowd tried to avoid. Time and time and time again, the left has oppose the hard right in favor of the easy wrong. Had we listen to the left in the 80's, we would have had a nuclear freeze and never placed Pershing Missles in Europe. But Reagan engaged in an Arms Race. That race was opposed by the left. What was the result. Ask Poland, Hungrary, Bulgaria... and the 13 former Soviet Socialist Republics if their lives are better today than 20 years ago? To suggest that inspections and sanctions work is to argue with reality. 12 years of sanctions have done nothing but hurt those we would help. 40 years of sanctions in Cuba have not set one Cuba free of Castro. The same would apply in Iraq. The left opposed the use of force to liberate Kuwait. The left did not oppose Saddam invasion of Kuwait. The left stood quietly by while the Serbs murdered Bosnian Muslims. When Clinton went in without UN permission to save Kosovo, there were absolutely ZERO protests about the lack of UN involvment...Would that had been so if a Republican held the presidency? I think not. The left said nothing while millions of Somilias died of starvation when food was used as a weapon. It did get involved once US troops were used to try and nation build. The result is that we are no longer there, and Somilia is still a basket case where thousands still die each month. The left said nothing when 500,000 Rwandans were butchered. Had we gotten involved directly, the left would have been there to oppose the effort. The left said that military involvment in Afgahastan would lead to disaster. But nary a word about the systematic abuse of women by the Taliaban. The left now states that disaster will befall this next effort. They lament that the US, in spite of the facts, is acting unilaterally and without international support (as though the only support that matters is that of France, Germany, Russia, China, and Mexico). Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Denmark, Austriaia, Chezk Republic, Bulgaria, Japan....etc. etc. etc... don't count? The left is very consistant to say the least....If only it was not so! Again, this is stated too you respectfully.
I welcome your approach and efforts to help us understand your point of view - but I do strongly disagree with the prediction of the future you present above. If there was one bit of proof of that last sentence, I'd be with you. But right now I trust Bush's advisors as much as I trust the pyschics on late-night tv when it comes to predicting the future.
USA: Thanks for your respect. As long as we (all) retain that there is hope for this republic. As for your points. I have to disagree with you on almost every one of them. Some of them are factually incorrect. For example, You might wish to check the news archives from the Yugoslav conflicts regarding protests prior to, during and after our involvement. I fear your memory serves you ill. Ditto Rwanda. "Said nothing." Is a rather blanket statement that is untrue. If you wish to fault Clinton and the world at large (except the French, I might add) for inaction, you have a point. But I fail to see how that has any relevance to a premeditated attack by the United States. I must do more than pretend to work today, so I can't rebut it in all it's glory. I'm sure others will do so with less respect. Cheers & Peace.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by USAsoccer I truly respect your point of view. But I also believe that you are close minded to the possibilty that THIS President may be right. Don't take yourself so far out on that limb that you find it impossible to make it back if your opinions turn out to be, figuratively, in left field. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would help if the Bush administration hadn't spent the last year lying to the American people and fumbling its way from diplomatic disaster to diplomatic disaster in single-minded pursuit of war at all costs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your opposition to this conflict to depose a man who possesses, and has used weapons of mass destruction is questionable to say the least. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So where are the calls for us to go in and do a regime change in China? Or get rid of the SLORC regime in Myanmar? Or any number of dictatorships? This is not even to mention the USA's post-WW2 habit of creating and supporting bloodthirsty dictatorships and death squads as local proxies to prop up our global empire. Where was the outrage from the Right when Suharto was slaughtering the East Timorese? Where was the outrage from the Right when Saddam was one of our bestest buddies? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hussein is DIRECTLY responsible for the death of 100s of thousands of innocent people. He has started wars with 2 of his neighbors. He will never stop his pursuit of mass terror or nuclear weapons. He will, one day, pass that technology to those who WILL do us harm. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So why aren't we invading NK, which has nukes NOW and has openly repudiated the non-proliferation treaty and WILL sell those nukes to terrorists? I can ask the same about Pakistan. What happens if they go the way of Iran '79 and suddenly you have religious extremists with a state nuclear arsenal? What about the Saudis actively funding terrorists? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This war will set free 22 million people. Would you have opposed the civil war because it might cause death and harm. NO, because it was the right and moral thing to do. Why would you argue against a conflict that will set 22 million people free. The anti-war movement during the Civil War helped to pro-long the conflict by giving false hoop to Washington's enemies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To repsond to your horrendously bad analogy, I would have opposed the South seceeding from the Union. Anyway, while I support the idea of freedom, the question remains "Where does this all stop?" If we're duty bound to "save" all people from regimes we don't like, when do we free all those BILLIONS of Chinese? Are we duty bound to save people from virtual slavery in the third world sweatshops that help prop up our artificially high standard of living? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The vociferious opposition of Irish-Americans and German-Americans, trade unionist and socialist helped delay the U.S. entry into World War 1 and thereby prolonged the killing of that war. If the advice of hawks like Teddy Roosevelt had been heeded, earlier US entry would have shortened the war and saved lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Another incorrect historical analogy, as is the WW2 analogy. These were better used regarding GW1. They are inapplicable here as is the usual hawkish blather about "appeasement". The reasons for these being crap analogies have already been explained in other threads and I refer you to them as I have no wish to reinvent the wheel at this point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time and time and time again, the left has oppose the hard right in favor of the easy wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If the right didn't have such a history of opposing the hard but correct choice in favor of the easy wrong by supporting dictators and death squads for temporary profit opportunities or committing treason by selling weapons to Iran to support a terrorist army in Nicaragua, maybe the the left would have more trust in the motives of any US administration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had we listen to the left in the 80's, we would have had a nuclear freeze and never placed Pershing Missles in Europe. But Reagan engaged in an Arms Race. That race was opposed by the left. What was the result. Ask Poland, Hungrary, Bulgaria... and the 13 former Soviet Socialist Republics if their lives are better today than 20 years ago? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Loney already trashed this same argument (Did you just cut and paste this from the other thread?) so I'll refer you to that. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To suggest that inspections and sanctions work is to argue with reality. 12 years of sanctions a have done nothing but hurt those we would help. 40 years of sanctions in Cuba have not set one Cuba free of Castro. The same would apply in Iraq. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, the official purpose of the two sets of sanctions were quite different. Go read a history book and learn something. Second, how many countries has Saddam attacked in the last 12 years? How many times has he used WMDs? How many nukes does he have? The reality is that inspections and sanctions have worked, as much as the Right wishes otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The left opposed the use of force to liberate Kuwait. The left did not oppose Saddam invasion of Kuwait. The left stood quietly by while the Serbs murdered Bosnian Muslims. The left said nothing while millions of Somilias died of starvation when food was used as a weapon. The left said nothing when 500,000 Rwandans were butchered. Had we gotten involved directly, the left would have been there to oppose the effort. The left said that military involvment in Afgahastan would lead to disaster. But nary a word about the systematic abuse of women by the Taliaban. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Historial revisionism at its most rank. You've obviously not done any homework on any of these situations or you'd know that the left has spoken out against all those things. You just lost any credibility you may have had by projecting your fantasy world onto reality. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The left now states that disaster will befall this next effort. They lament that the US, in spite of the facts, is acting unilaterally and without international support (as though the only support that matters is that of France, Germany, Russia, China, and Mexico). Spain, Great Britain, Poland, Italy, Denmark, Austrialia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Japan....etc. etc. etc... don't count? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is only a small veneer of support in most of the countries you named. A few elites in those countries half-heartedly support the war, possibly because they're been bribed or are afraid of us, while the majority of people of those countries oppose it. Even in Britain, Blair has effectively committed political suicide by marrying himself to Bush. If the Bush admnistration had demonstrated any diplomatic competence during the war build-up, I'd feel better about the chances for us eventually creating a workable peace in the Middle East or at least in Iraq. Their sorry record in this endeavor, however, can only give a reasonable person pause for thought regarding such chances now.
USASoccer, I appreciate your attempt to have a calm discussion. But your initial post has some problems. First, there the use of blanket statements about what liberals favored in the past and/or today. And some of those blankets are threadbare. Second, I'm not seeing alot of tight arguments using established facts wrt THIS conflict.
The administration made it hard for me to believe anything they say when they (briefly) tried to claim an invasion of Iraq would be a necessary step in the War on Terror, and then started to exaggerate (if not fabricate) Al Quida connections to the Hussein regime. Or to expand on a point Joe Pakovits briefly mentioned: how many 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi? Now, how many were Saudis? Now, why are the Saudis our allies? Another example of the right willfully backing a regime that, while maybe not overtly supporting terrorist networks, is certainly not doing anything to shut them down. And I think we can all agree that the groups Saudi billionaires regulary funnel money to have done us serious harm.
aren't these the same sanctions that at least from the more left-thinking people i've talked to, killed thousands of babies in iraq? if that is so, is it right to continue them?
Where were we when he was actually doing this stuff? Oh yeah - supporting him. If the current administration had the sack to criticize Reagan and admit the US made a mistake, this wouldn't reek of amateur relatavism. Sez you. There is zero evidence supporting this claim. None at all. Zilch. You might be on to something - if you had said this 15 years ago. When we supported Saddam. And didn't consistently ignore atrocities on the African continent far worse. You give Reagan far too much credit. The fall of the Soviet Union had started much much earlier than this, and was a lock to happen at some point. A complete certainty. Too bad for you the goal of sanctions in Iraq wasn't to "set Iraq free of Saddam" - it was to prevent Saddam from becoming a threat to his neighbors again. Mission accomplished. Now you are just making sh!+ up. Sure, there were some nutters, but... c'mon. I thought Clinton was a lefty-pinko-commie? So did we stand by quietly, or go in? I'm so confused. OK, I'm not - the US tried to convince the Europeans to handle their own problems, and when they didn't (in both Bosnia and Kosovo) the US stepped in to end ongoing atrocities. These situations are not analagous to Iraq. You vastly over-simplify Somalia. Bush the Elder didn't even really want to be there. All public support for Somalia evaporated after the Blackhawks were shot down, leaving Clinton little choice. And the right did what, exactly? This is getting rediculous. Uh, I think people on the left were complaining about how horrid the Taliban were long before Sept 11. Frankly, little has changed there since we went in. Sure, the Taliban are gone, but the new gov't exercises virtually no control over provincial tribal gov'ts, and we aren't really interested in helping. Yes, we are acting in spite of the facts. Anyway, why don't you tally up how many countries are willing to put their money where their mouths are and pony up combat troops. The list becomes very short very quickly. BTW, I wouldn't exactly call myself "leftist". It's just that I'm left of Dubya, but then again so is most of the country.
It would have been better to keep the sanctions limited to actual military items while not initially denying Iraq access to medical supplies. Of course, there are lot of better things we could have done in Iraq and elsewhere over the past 50 years, including not supporting Saddam and all the others like him in the first place. It's a same our leaders chose not to do those things or we probably wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. And the current bunch don't offer much hope that they've learned the lessons of history either.
Joe, you keep using the word 'lying' quite a bit when you speak of the Bush administration. I just want know what is it that they are lying about and do you have proof that he is lying. Can you please explain so as to try and sway a mind that seems to be misguided?
How about the hard core proof that everyone is asking Bush for on Iraqi WMD's? Not a bunch of people on BigSoccer saying that Bush lyed. Or am I missing those point within the "Lies" thread?
Bush was asked to show his cards. He folded, hiding behind the skirt of "we ca'nt reveal inteligence sources. You'll have to trust us." Now, if the Bush administration hadn't already told all those other fibs, maybe more people than the usual Bush-worshippers would have given him the benefit of the doubt. But that's the price you pay for crying wolf.
Dave, I appreciate you point and you ARE CORRECT. I should not have cateogorized as I did. Peoples views change from issue to issue. I probably used some poor word choices in there. For example, Cman correctly pointed something out to me, I should clarify it now.... I stated that: The left said nothing when 500,000 Rwandans were butchered. Had we gotten involved directly, the left would have been there to oppose the effort. This is not completely accurate. I should have said that our government (under President Clinton) stood quietly by while that atrocity took place... Superdave...give me a moment here to vent off topic..... FOOSHIHO I did NOT SEE any protester come out against Saddam after he invaded Kuwait.... I did see a lot of protesting chanting No Blood for Oil ......................................... Now back to your second questoin... I will do my best to respond directly.... It is my perspective that Saddam Hussian represents a clear and present danger to this country. I beleive that he possesses weapons of mass destruction and will used them given the chance. I beleive that inspections do not work, or will ever work. I beleive that given time, inspectors will be foiled and eventually kick/pulled out of Iraq as was the case in 1998. I beleive that 12 years is enough time to give him a chance to comply with the clear instructions of the security counsel. I beleive that he has willfully NOT complied, which is clear evidence of his intent to keep, and eventually use weapons of mass destruction. He has used these weapons in the past. He is responsible for the murder of 100's of thousands. He was given a chance to immediately comply with the security counsel. He failed to comply. Now serious consequences will follow. 22 milliion Iraqi's will be free. Hopefully, the establishment of a democracy in that part of the world (other than Isreal) will have a signicant impact in the course of world events...
And if he had nuked one of them the US would have been Iraq's best friend till this day. Please, get your facts straight. A lot of people who more or less oppose this war do so not because they feel that Saddam is Ok or that he's no threat at all. They do so because this is a situation that WE created. And when he went at Iran, the whole west loved him for it. Anyone with some brains knows that freedom or democracy are not motives for this war, they are handy PR but the truth is that the west never gave a damn about the people in Iraq or anywhere. As long as a certain regime suits our (mostly the US's) needs... they can kill all they want. Only when western (once again, mostly US) intrests are at stake will something be done. And this lying, cheating and moralistic BS that we are being fed is the reason that most people are starting to get sick and tired of this war. Please, stop it with the whole 'freedom of 22 million people' crap. That has NOTHING to do with this war. Those 22 million could all burn as far as we care. That's the truth. PS The US didn't seem to have too much trouble with Taliban when they were trying to get some oil pipes laid on their land. And the situation really isn't that much better now than it was.
Joe... you lose credibility when you get like this... No one, not even the French, Chinese or Syrians, dispute that Saddam presently possess Weapons of Mass Destruction. Tone down the rhetoric...
angus, there is a rhinoceros hidden in the room in which you are typing. But don't ask me to prove it. Just trust me, I'm not lying.
The Bush administration said he has nukes. Then when that got disproven, they said he could make them now. Then when that got disproven, they silently gave up and switched to other nonsense. Stop trying to apologize for the Bush administration's lies. Who are you? Montel Williams?
Are you disputing the FACT that Iraq invaded Iran and Kuwait.... Or do you have a problem that 4 Administrations back, a President made a political choice to favor Iraq over a regime that had cut all diplomatic ties to the US, held its diplomatic personnel hostage for 444 days (give or take) and who affectionally refered to us as the "Great Satan".... And given all that, how is anything from 1980-1897 relevant to 2003 and the fact that Saddam has GOT TO GO!
Joe: IF it was not for Saddam son in law defecting in 1995, we would not have known that Saddam was 6 months away from having a nuke, right under the noses of the inspectors.... For that fact, Saddam murdered is son in law... So puleaseeeee tone down your rhetoric
While I agree that France took action, are you implying that the actions they took were the correct ones?
This has nothing to do with what Bush cliamed and was later proven false. So puleaseeeee stop living in denial of the obvious.