Bush Poses Interesting Question!

[blueapplepaste]

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

So in other words you have no arguments against Grizzly's list. I think he pretty much summed it up perfectly.

 

[Vylo]

No. Wealth gap grew, debt ballooned, Iraq debacle, war on terror is going unfavorably, voted against stem cell funding....

He hasn't really done much that I would consider beneficial as a whole.

 

[PassionFruit]

No. Wealth gap grew, debt ballooned, Iraq debacle, war on terror is going unfavorably, voted against stem cell funding....

He hasn't really done much that I would consider beneficial as a whole.

Don't forget he reinstated the Global Gag Rule.

 

[Verv]

Is the world better with President Bush?

Yes, undoubtedly.

He removed a terrorist regime in Afghanistan and toppled a totalitarian, cruel, inhuman dictator in Iraq. The Iraq example led to regional reforms, including elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as helped spur a lot of countries to reconsider their ties with shady organizations.

Even now, partly because of Chinese efforts and our own, North Korea is shying away.

He has put pressure on Myanmar that just recently has resulted in them drawing up initial plans for democracy; though it is really pathetic, it is a start nonetheless.

He also proposed great plans for AIDS benefits to African nations in dire need.

He made some stupid reforms concerning education, he made tax cuts that unpredictably became a mistake after the necessity of war made them ridiculous, he came up with no viable health care plane for the country, he did not secure the border and has proposed strange amnesty plans, etc.

However, what he has done in world politics will probably be remembered as the last Hoorah for the American people. It marks the end of an age where we had faith in ideals.

We used to believe in democracy and human rights, and we believed that we were the good guys who can rightfully kill the bad guys. That really wasn't a bad idea at all because those guys truly were bad people and we truly were good people with good intentions.

We helped a lot of countries, and even after we vanquished our enemies we did not punish them but rebuilt their countries for them. I saw Lech Walesa speak and he jokingly said he wanted to declare war on the US just to lose miserably and be rebuilt by us.

I think Bush is the last President to execute the golden age of American foreign policy: Killing bad guys, threatening the ones who walk on our tiger's tail, carrying the big stick and not taking the gob of dictators.

The world is going to need a new country to be on alert for injustice as the impotent UN merely observes world conflict and then a year later decides to send peace keepers who are nothing more than soldiers without bullets with no capability of action, just there to observe atrocity.

I really hope that there will be somebody to carry on the American legacy now that our people have lost their integrity, their honesty and their Faith in what is Right.

I do not even know who a potential candidate is, but the world si going to need somebody who knows what right and wrong is and who will put evil in its place.

 

[ScottishJohn]

He removed a terrorist regime in Afghanistan

6 years on and the terrorists are still there, and so are we.

and toppled a totalitarian, cruel, inhuman dictator in Iraq.

And has yet to fill the power vacuum with anything capable of providing any improvement.

However, what he has done in world politics will probably be remembered as the last Hoorah for the American people. It marks the end of an age where we had faith in ideals.

I can't reconcile what Bush had done with this passage - the two don't match up.

The world is going to need a new country to be on alert for injustice as the impotent UN merely observes world conflict and then a year later decides to send peace keepers who are nothing more than soldiers without bullets with no capability of action, just there to observe atrocity.

Why is the UN impotent? COuld it be that being undermined by founding countries - by the country which had the vision for the UN in the first place - is not particlarly good for an organisation?

I really hope that there will be somebody to carry on the American legacy

I hope there is someone to start a legacy worth leaving. Please don't let there be someone to continue what Bush has started.

now that our people have lost their integrity, their honesty and their Faith in what is Right.

You are kidding me?

 

[TheReasoner]

No. It is not better off.
See Grizzly's list for a good start as to 'why'.

 

[Billnew]

PS - what's a neoliberal?

I am not even sure what a Neo-Con is. So don't ask me.

I voted no.
Bush's legacy will be the war on terrorism -- and on that, Bush has failed miserably. Terrorism has only gotten worse since Bush has been in office. I can think of many other things our tax dollars could be used for instead of wasting it on Iraq.

Terrorism is worse? How many American civilians have died in the US? In Iraq and Afganistan, those are war zones, and bombs exploding aren't uncomon.(look at bomb blasts in the area the US isn't.
Terrorism is better or unchanged. Not worse. We have terrorists facing our military, the way it should be. How much longer should the US accept being sucker punched before taking on the terrorists. Terrorists have been attacking us since early 70's, without much response.

Don't forget he reinstated the Global Gag Rule.

Global Gag rule?

I think we would have done good to replace the post 9-11 president, but we had no real choice.
I doubt no matter who the President was during 9-11 and after, they wouldn't have reacted properly.
Post 9-11, would the US be happy to continue status quo except for Afganistan?
I think Bush did a good job getting the economy back on track after 9-11. If we had a Democrat, the economy would have been left in the sewer. Maybe that would have been better for war support, suffer in the economy while the troops suffer in war. Democrats don't believe in reducing the taxes. Tax and spend doesn't stimulate the economy. Short term borrow and spend will. But we are well past that time.
Border security is a failing of all parties. But the President is high on the list.

 

[Verv]

John:

You need to give it some time, my friend, and honestly, the current state which has some issues but has hope for a future is superior to the eternal darkness of living under repression.

Would you rather have the Taliban and the Ba'athists indefinitely in power, without an end obviously in sight?

I also think we have some very conflicting ideas of right and wrong. I base my idea off of right off of something like this:
- Is the person being attacked a sponsor or harborer of bad men?
- Is the person being attacked, in fact, a bad man?
- Will the removal save lives in the long run?

What is your criteria? I am curious -- do yout hink that it is the business of a country to clean up the neighborhood ever?

 

[Ringo84]

Is the world better with President Bush?

Yes, undoubtedly.

He removed a terrorist regime in Afghanistan and toppled a totalitarian, cruel, inhuman dictator in Iraq. The Iraq example led to regional reforms, including elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as helped spur a lot of countries to reconsider their ties with shady organizations.

Even now, partly because of Chinese efforts and our own, North Korea is shying away.

He has put pressure on Myanmar that just recently has resulted in them drawing up initial plans for democracy; though it is really pathetic, it is a start nonetheless.

He also proposed great plans for AIDS benefits to African nations in dire need.

He made some stupid reforms concerning education, he made tax cuts that unpredictably became a mistake after the necessity of war made them ridiculous, he came up with no viable health care plane for the country, he did not secure the border and has proposed strange amnesty plans, etc.

However, what he has done in world politics will probably be remembered as the last Hoorah for the American people. It marks the end of an age where we had faith in ideals.

We used to believe in democracy and human rights, and we believed that we were the good guys who can rightfully kill the bad guys. That really wasn't a bad idea at all because those guys truly were bad people and we truly were good people with good intentions.

We helped a lot of countries, and even after we vanquished our enemies we did not punish them but rebuilt their countries for them. I saw Lech Walesa speak and he jokingly said he wanted to declare war on the US just to lose miserably and be rebuilt by us.

I think Bush is the last President to execute the golden age of American foreign policy: Killing bad guys, threatening the ones who walk on our tiger's tail, carrying the big stick and not taking the gob of dictators.

The world is going to need a new country to be on alert for injustice as the impotent UN merely observes world conflict and then a year later decides to send peace keepers who are nothing more than soldiers without bullets with no capability of action, just there to observe atrocity.

I really hope that there will be somebody to carry on the American legacy now that our people have lost their integrity, their honesty and their Faith in what is Right.

I do not even know who a potential candidate is, but the world si going to need somebody who knows what right and wrong is and who will put evil in its place.

We used to believe in democracy and human rights

Surely the terrorists haven't so terrorized us that we would resort to going back on democracy and human rights just for some temporary security. We all know what Ben Franklin had to say about that.

we believed that we were the good guys who can rightfully kill the bad guys. That really wasn't a bad idea at all because those guys truly were bad people and we truly were good people with good intentions.

Despite torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, manipulation about WMD, I still believe we're the good guys. We can't sacrifice absolutely everything to defeat the terrorists. A little bit of sacrifice will happen during war, but if we take away everything that has made this country great for over two hundred years, we may be able to defeat the terrorists, but we will have lost our soul in the process. That's too much to sacrifice.

We are the good guys. We just need to start acting like the good guys and not lowering ourselves to the terrorists' level.
Ringo

 

[Vylo]

Is the world better with President Bush?

Yes, undoubtedly.

He removed a terrorist regime in Afghanistan and toppled a totalitarian, cruel, inhuman dictator in Iraq. The Iraq example led to regional reforms, including elections in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan as well as helped spur a lot of countries to reconsider their ties with shady organizations.

Even now, partly because of Chinese efforts and our own, North Korea is shying away.

He has put pressure on Myanmar that just recently has resulted in them drawing up initial plans for democracy; though it is really pathetic, it is a start nonetheless.

He also proposed great plans for AIDS benefits to African nations in dire need.

He made some stupid reforms concerning education, he made tax cuts that unpredictably became a mistake after the necessity of war made them ridiculous, he came up with no viable health care plane for the country, he did not secure the border and has proposed strange amnesty plans, etc.

However, what he has done in world politics will probably be remembered as the last Hoorah for the American people. It marks the end of an age where we had faith in ideals.

We used to believe in democracy and human rights, and we believed that we were the good guys who can rightfully kill the bad guys. That really wasn't a bad idea at all because those guys truly were bad people and we truly were good people with good intentions.

We helped a lot of countries, and even after we vanquished our enemies we did not punish them but rebuilt their countries for them. I saw Lech Walesa speak and he jokingly said he wanted to declare war on the US just to lose miserably and be rebuilt by us.

I think Bush is the last President to execute the golden age of American foreign policy: Killing bad guys, threatening the ones who walk on our tiger's tail, carrying the big stick and not taking the gob of dictators.

The world is going to need a new country to be on alert for injustice as the impotent UN merely observes world conflict and then a year later decides to send peace keepers who are nothing more than soldiers without bullets with no capability of action, just there to observe atrocity.

I really hope that there will be somebody to carry on the American legacy now that our people have lost their integrity, their honesty and their Faith in what is Right.

I do not even know who a potential candidate is, but the world si going to need somebody who knows what right and wrong is and who will put evil in its place.

Afghanistan is the only thing listed there I could agree with, and we didn't get the ring leaders.

Bush hasn't helped the fight against AIDS. Countries have turned down US aid because we want them to do things that will actually HURT their efforts.

Iraq has turned into a huge debacle. And it wasn't even necessary.

North Korea will always shy away. The only way they wouldn't is if no one paid attention to them. Their leader is nothing but an attention seeker. In a few years, he's going to be at it again if he's still around. Seriously, what are they going to do? Declare war? They would get curb stomped. The US wouldn't have to lift a finger. We'd maybe counter a few missile and then watch the South Koreans mow down their army as it starved to death.

 

[ScottishJohn]

John:
You need to give it some time, my friend, and honestly, the current state which has some issues but has hope for a future is superior to the eternal darkness of living under repression.

I think it is easy to make these kind of comments from where we are sitting. Not so easy when you and your family have lost everything and the only people who seem to have any power to help them effectively are people like Al Sadr.

Would you rather have the Taliban and the Ba'athists indefinitely in power, without an end obviously in sight?

I don't think it was ever an either or question. If you want to get into revisionism, then which 'honest' state was it which did business with the Ba'athists, and abandoned post soviet Afghanistan to the Taliban? Tried to do some business with them too!

If you are going to act it is crucial that you make a positive difference. We are now starting from behind in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Insurgents have a firm grip on Iraq, and that is due to choices that we made in our invasion. We could have, and should have prevented their rise to power. We chose not to.

I also think we have some very conflicting ideas of right and wrong. I base my idea off of right off of something like this:
- Is the person being attacked a sponsor or harborer of bad men?
- Is the person being attacked, in fact, a bad man?
- Will the removal save lives in the long run?

I understand that we are skimming the surface here, but even by that standard those criteria are shallow. The US at various points through history could qualify for the first and second. I don't know how you can possibly have any confidence in the third bearing in mind the current situation we are facing.

What is your criteria? I am curious -- do yout hink that it is the business of a country to clean up the neighborhood ever?

I believe in a United Nations. Perhaps not the one we have, but one similar to it in many respects. I have no confidence in any one nation fulfilling these type of activities and specifically not the US.

My criteria would be: Have we thoroughly exhausted all other means? (To which the answer is usually no). Have we a history with this country which makes us part of the problem? (To which the answer is usually yes). Has this tactic ever proven successful in the past (which in the case of the War on Terror is a resounding no). What will it cost those concerned in terms of lives and stewardship of resources?

Most importantly: Do we actually have a plan that might work, and consensus that carrying out that plan is a wise thing to do?

 

[Suomipoika]

I hate Bush, and I'll admit it readily.

It's amazing how the Christians in the early church prayed and were admonished to pray for the emperor and his regime, even on the moments when they were suffering persecution due to his policies. Could one ever genuinely pray for someone whom one openly hates?

 

[Norseman]

I think Bush should be tried for warcrimes under the Nuremberg laws, then promptly hung. Regardless, I do think the world is better off because of him. He's taught people to distrust their governments, which is an important lesson to learn. He will be an example for years to come of the danger of an unrestricted government, and hopefully, has already brought us one step closer to ending American imperialism.

 

[PassionFruit]

I am not even sure what a Neo-Con is. So don't ask me.


Terrorism is worse? How many American civilians have died in the US? In Iraq and Afganistan, those are war zones, and bombs exploding aren't uncomon.(look at bomb blasts in the area the US isn't.
Terrorism is better or unchanged. Not worse. We have terrorists facing our military, the way it should be. How much longer should the US accept being sucker punched before taking on the terrorists. Terrorists have been attacking us since early 70's, without much response.

Global Gag rule?

I think we would have done good to replace the post 9-11 president, but we had no real choice.
I doubt no matter who the President was during 9-11 and after, they wouldn't have reacted properly.
Post 9-11, would the US be happy to continue status quo except for Afganistan?
I think Bush did a good job getting the economy back on track after 9-11. If we had a Democrat, the economy would have been left in the sewer. Maybe that would have been better for war support, suffer in the economy while the troops suffer in war. Democrats don't believe in reducing the taxes. Tax and spend doesn't stimulate the economy. Short term borrow and spend will. But we are well past that time.
Border security is a failing of all parties. But the President is high on the list.

You've never heard of the Global Gag Rule? It's foolish policy Bush reinstated just because of his own silly personal beliefs. Let's just put like this, Bush reinstated a policy that puts people's health at risk. Just as Vylo pointed out, he's done nothing to help curb the epidemic of AIDS in African nations. In fact, he probably made the epidemic worse because he too stupid to see past his own moral beliefs.

Which is part of the Gag rule, Bush denied aid to nations who support a woman's right to an abortion, or family planning clinics who even mention abortion as an option. The problem is, many people get their information about how to protect themselves from STD's (including AIDS) from these clinics, but since there's little funding, these clinics have to cut down on their services are sometimes they're also forced to close.

He's done nothing to help. He only made things worse.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Wow. Neo-Liberals sure are judgmental. I thought they all saying "Judge not lest ye be judged". It is apparent that you are full of hatred against this man. Seriously, is this going to produce anything intelligent, or will it just be a "hate Bush" thread.

I don't see how posting bad things Bush has done amounts to hatred of him.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Obviously, my answer is "no." Bush has completely squandered the international political capital that the U.S. built up in the 90's and immediately after 9/11. What's more, he squandered the opportunity to capture Osama and crush al Qaeda, in favor of embroiling us in what his Administration realized thirteen years ago would be a quagmire; to me, that course of action makes about as much sense as FDR responding to Pearl Harbor by invading Spain or the USSR. His socially conservative policies have alienated many open-minded individuals seeking spiritual truth from Christianity, where under other circumstances they might have found the enlightenment which they sought.

Overall, I would say that he's the single worst President this country has ever seen. I pray that he will remain the worst for the rest of our history.

 

[Verv]

Surely the terrorists haven't so terrorized us that we would resort to going back on democracy and human rights just for some temporary security. We all know what Ben Franklin had to say about that.

I fail to see how Americans are forfeiting their rights -- I do not think that I have received any mistreatment or suspension of rights. And every time that somebody tries to cite something in the Patriot Act against me, I can generally point out how it is misrepresented and usually not applicable. It is very anti-climactic.

[qoote]Despite torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, manipulation about WMD, I still believe we're the good guys. We can't sacrifice absolutely everything to defeat the terrorists. A little bit of sacrifice will happen during war, but if we take away everything that has made this country great for over two hundred years, we may be able to defeat the terrorists, but we will have lost our soul in the process. That's too much to sacrifice.

We are the good guys. We just need to start acting like the good guys and not lowering ourselves to the terrorists' level.
Ringo[/quote]

Gitmo is a detention facility for people who bore arms against the US forces in Afghanistan and are associated with the terror groups. It is sweet and proper to detain and question your enemy, and it is sweet and proper that those who bear arms against the US are held accountable.

Abu Gharib is not a government policy and in no way applicable to Pres. Bush. In fact, the people involved are literally serving prison sentences -- doesn't this qualify as a condemnation from the United States if we imprison those responsible?

And more: manipulation of information concerning WMDs? Well, the British Parliament nor the US Congress did not conceive as much. When many great liberal figures like Sen. Clinton and Sen. Kerry saw the same information Pres. Bush saw, they voted to go to war.

When the information was flawed, instead of investigating the source of it or listening to analysts who believe the weapons could have been shipped to Syria, they blamed the President for manipulating something (to which there is no evidence).

Afghanistan is the only thing listed there I could agree with, and we didn't get the ring leaders.

Bush hasn't helped the fight against AIDS. Countries have turned down US aid because we want them to do things that will actually HURT their efforts.

Sources?

Iraq has turned into a huge debacle. And it wasn't even necessary.

I think there is definitely a light of hope and that Kurdish Iraq is greatly overlooked.

I also think that there is something to say about a man who relieved religious repression and ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

If people are being persecuted under such grounds I have a hard time saying that their liberation is unnecessary -- how is it unnecessary?

North Korea will always shy away. The only way they wouldn't is if no one paid attention to them. Their leader is nothing but an attention seeker. In a few years, he's going to be at it again if he's still around. Seriously, what are they going to do? Declare war? They would get curb stomped. The US wouldn't have to lift a finger. We'd maybe counter a few missile and then watch the South Koreans mow down their army as it starved to death.

No, the guy blatantly lies to us in the past and counterfeits our money; in 1988 they even bombed a south Korean airliner.

I think that you misunderstand the situation.

I think it is easy to make these kind of comments from where we are sitting. Not so easy when you and your family have lost everything and the only people who seem to have any power to help them effectively are people like Al Sadr.

Or, then again, we might have more ease saying these things as Kurds, whereas 5 years ago we would have no hope of as much.

In fact, you would have a hard time saying anything not endorsed by the government 5 years ago.

I don't think it was ever an either or question. If you want to get into revisionism, then which 'honest' state was it which did business with the Ba'athists, and abandoned post soviet Afghanistan to the Taliban? Tried to do some business with them too!

Pre-1991 politics is an entirely different beast and making comparisons to then and now is ridiculous, and to say that we had much doing with the Taliban coming to power is also ridiculous.

If you talk about historic politics it is necessary you understand them from a historic perspective.

We did not casually tinker with Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s -- we did so in a world where we had a rival which posed serious threat to our welfare and safety, and we did so to essentially fight proxy wars against our rival the way they did against us.

It would be ignorant to say that these were things done with cold hearts and grievous political irresponsibility.

And furthermore, Pres. Bush did none of these things.

If you are going to act it is crucial that you make a positive difference. We are now starting from behind in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Insurgents have a firm grip on Iraq, and that is due to choices that we made in our invasion. We could have, and should have prevented their rise to power. We chose not to.

Firm grip on southern Iraq, and even there, there are signs of progress.

It may be a war that will last longer but to retreat now and call it a failure is simply our own self-fulfilling prophecy. We should stick it out because we can turn it into something.

I believe in a United Nations. Perhaps not the one we have, but one similar to it in many respects. I have no confidence in any one nation fulfilling these type of activities and specifically not the US.

I think the US never goes it entirely alone, ever, and rather it does garner much cooperation. I am certain I was rather Americentric in those statements so perhaps I should apologize; sometimes patriotism merely comes bubbling through the soul.

My criteria would be: Have we thoroughly exhausted all other means? (To which the answer is usually no). Have we a history with this country which makes us part of the problem? (To which the answer is usually yes). Has this tactic ever proven successful in the past (which in the case of the War on Terror is a resounding no). What will it cost those concerned in terms of lives and stewardship of resources?

You think that Hussein is a man of trust (question one)?

And our history includes invading the country for invading its neighbors and protesting the fact that it supports terror attacks on our allies.

And tell me, exactly, what is the tactic we are using?

I think Bush should be tried for warcrimes under the Nuremberg laws, then promptly hung. Regardless, I do think the world is better off because of him. He's taught people to distrust their governments, which is an important lesson to learn. He will be an example for years to come of the danger of an unrestricted government, and hopefully, has already brought us one step closer to ending American imperialism.

I don't see how posting bad things Bush has done amounts to hatred of him.

It is ironic that these statements exist in the same thread.

Pres. Bush should apparently be tried under the same laws which Nazis were tried under, and then be executed.

Sounds hateful to me.

 

[Ringo84]

[qoote]Despite torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, manipulation about WMD, I still believe we're the good guys. We can't sacrifice absolutely everything to defeat the terrorists. A little bit of sacrifice will happen during war, but if we take away everything that has made this country great for over two hundred years, we may be able to defeat the terrorists, but we will have lost our soul in the process. That's too much to sacrifice.

We are the good guys. We just need to start acting like the good guys and not lowering ourselves to the terrorists' level.
Ringo[/quote]

Gitmo is a detention facility for people who bore arms against the US forces in Afghanistan and are associated with the terror groups. It is sweet and proper to detain and question your enemy, and it is sweet and proper that those who bear arms against the US are held accountable.

Abu Gharib is not a government policy and in no way applicable to Pres. Bush. In fact, the people involved are literally serving prison sentences -- doesn't this qualify as a condemnation from the United States if we imprison those responsible?

And more: manipulation of information concerning WMDs? Well, the British Parliament nor the US Congress did not conceive as much. When many great liberal figures like Sen. Clinton and Sen. Kerry saw the same information Pres. Bush saw, they voted to go to war.

When the information was flawed, instead of investigating the source of it or listening to analysts who believe the weapons could have been shipped to Syria, they blamed the President for manipulating something (to which there is no evidence).



Sources?



I think there is definitely a light of hope and that Kurdish Iraq is greatly overlooked.

I also think that there is something to say about a man who relieved religious repression and ethnic cleansing in Iraq.

If people are being persecuted under such grounds I have a hard time saying that their liberation is unnecessary -- how is it unnecessary?



No, the guy blatantly lies to us in the past and counterfeits our money; in 1988 they even bombed a south Korean airliner.

I think that you misunderstand the situation.



Or, then again, we might have more ease saying these things as Kurds, whereas 5 years ago we would have no hope of as much.

In fact, you would have a hard time saying anything not endorsed by the government 5 years ago.



Pre-1991 politics is an entirely different beast and making comparisons to then and now is ridiculous, and to say that we had much doing with the Taliban coming to power is also ridiculous.

If you talk about historic politics it is necessary you understand them from a historic perspective.

We did not casually tinker with Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s -- we did so in a world where we had a rival which posed serious threat to our welfare and safety, and we did so to essentially fight proxy wars against our rival the way they did against us.

It would be ignorant to say that these were things done with cold hearts and grievous political irresponsibility.

And furthermore, Pres. Bush did none of these things.



Firm grip on southern Iraq, and even there, there are signs of progress.

It may be a war that will last longer but to retreat now and call it a failure is simply our own self-fulfilling prophecy. We should stick it out because we can turn it into something.




I think the US never goes it entirely alone, ever, and rather it does garner much cooperation. I am certain I was rather Americentric in those statements so perhaps I should apologize; sometimes patriotism merely comes bubbling through the soul.



You think that Hussein is a man of trust (question one)?

And our history includes invading the country for invading its neighbors and protesting the fact that it supports terror attacks on our allies.

And tell me, exactly, what is the tactic we are using?





It is ironic that these statements exist in the same thread.

Pres. Bush should apparently be tried under the same laws which Nazis were tried under, and then be executed.

Sounds hateful to me.[/quote]

I fail to see how Americans are forfeiting their rights -- I do not think that I have received any mistreatment or suspension of rights.

Just because you don't feel any direct effect on your everyday life doesn't mean that you are not forfeiting your rights. Habeas corpus as well as the right to a speedy trial in front on a jury are being called into question through the Gitmo and extraordinary rendition laws. The right against unusual searches and seizures law is being called into question through the Patriot Act. These rights are being discarded like so many cigarette butts in the name of a little bit of temporary security, and it is disgraceful.

it is misrepresented and usually not applicable.

How is it misrepresented?

Gitmo is a detention facility for people who bore arms against the US forces in Afghanistan and are associated with the terror groups. It is sweet and proper to detain and question your enemy, and it is sweet and proper that those who bear arms against the US are held accountable.

It's one thing to hold your enemies in a detention facility. It's another thing to hold those enemies without a benefit of a lawyer or without the ability to have their day in court. It's even more to hold non-terrorists in there simply because the President has given himself the ability to arrest and hold, indefinitely, anyone he chooses at any time and for any reason.

Abu Gharib is not a government policy and in no way applicable to Pres. Bush. In fact, the people involved are literally serving prison sentences -- doesn't this qualify as a condemnation from the United States if we imprison those responsible?

Did we not liberate Abu Ghraib from Saddam's control and then turn it into a torture center? For people who were supposedly trying to liberate that country, that was a false move.

And more: manipulation of information concerning WMDs? Well, the British Parliament nor the US Congress did not conceive as much. When many great liberal figures like Sen. Clinton and Sen. Kerry saw the same information Pres. Bush saw, they voted to go to war.

They were not the ones to proffer false information.

Furthermore, did the Downing Street Memos not prove that Bush was eager to get into Iraq long before 9/11? They deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam in order to get us bogged into Iraq. It's sure looks as though the "War On Terror" was his excuse to invade that country.
Ringo

 

[ScottishJohn]

Or, then again, we might have more ease saying these things as Kurds, whereas 5 years ago we would have no hope of as much.

Iraqi Kurdistan was entirely beyond Saddam's reach, never mind 5, try 15 years ago.

In fact, you would have a hard time saying anything not endorsed by the government 5 years ago.

And how easy is it to say anything not endorsed by the militias now? Or to be a Christian. Saddam's deputy prime minister was from a Christian background. Now Christians are being persecuted all over Iraq. Or to be a woman? Or just to eat and stay alive?

If you talk about historic politics it is necessary you understand them from a historic perspective.

We did not casually tinker with Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1980s -- we did so in a world where we had a rival which posed serious threat to our welfare and safety, and we did so to essentially fight proxy wars against our rival the way they did against us.

And God help anyone who got in our way. Your rationalisation of what took place does nothing to change the fact that many of those actions had undesired effects at the time, and have significantly contributed to the situation we are in now. Once the soviets left Afghanistan the country was shattered. We had poured resources in for the fight. We weren't interested in helping them any further. The Taleban filled the gap we left, and now we have to go back and fix what we could have prevented in the first place, and it costs more in lives, and in money than it would have done in the first place, and this is the history of our foreign policy - self interested half measures which need to be revisited within a generation and are replaced by more of the same.

It would be ignorant to say that these were things done with cold hearts and grievous political irresponsibility.

I don't share that optimistic view, and I don't see any basis in fact to support it.

And furthermore, Pres. Bush did none of these things.

No, he had his own generation of disasterous policy to build on the generations which came before.

Firm grip on southern Iraq, and even there, there are signs of progress.

Again, I see no basis in fact for this opinion. You only have to look at the criticisms of recent events in Basra to see that your statement holds no water.

It may be a war that will last longer but to retreat now and call it a failure is simply our own self-fulfilling prophecy. We should stick it out because we can turn it into something.

I totally agree. That does not change what has happened so far, it does not excuse 4 years of atrocious decision making in Iraq leading directly to the dire straits we are in now. Yes, our only option with a shred of integrity is to stay, change tactics, and try and salvage what we can. However, the chef who rescues a ruined meal does not vindicate the chef who burnt it in the first place.

I think the US never goes it entirely alone, ever, and rather it does garner much cooperation. I am certain I was rather Americentric in those statements so perhaps I should apologize; sometimes patriotism merely comes bubbling through the soul.

Don't apologise - it is good to discuss these issues with someone who believes in concrete right and wrong, and regardless of differences of opinions, believes that those concepts must influence our path in the world. makes a really refreshing change from 'they are not british / american so stuff them'.

You think that Hussein is a man of trust (question one)?

No. And I wouldn't trust Bush, or Musharraf, or Blair or Putin, or Ahmadinejad, or Karzai or Sarkozy or any of the rest of them.

And our history includes invading the country for invading its neighbors and protesting the fact that it supports terror attacks on our allies.

It also involves selling them arms, helping them fight a long and brutal war which they didn't need but we did, helping Saddam cement his grip on power, if you go back far enough, creating the situation which allowed Saddam to come to power, failing those who tried to throw him out of power, filling our pockets in oil for food scams while the population suffered and so the list continues. We have ZERO credibility.

And tell me, exactly, what is the tactic we are using?

The mistaken belief that you can fight terrorism with military force, without addressing the underlying grievances which contribute to people to take up arms. Or in the case of Iraq adding to the underlying grievances which contribute to people taking up arms.

 

[Verv]

Iraqi Kurdistan was entirely beyond Saddam's reach, never mind 5, try 15 years ago.

Why was it beyond his reach? No-Fly Zones enforced by the United States which allowed the independence of the people in the zone.

However, was Kurdistan as good as it is now? Not by any means -- now there is actually investment in the future. You would be kidding yourself if you were to pretend that Kurdistan would have an American University now, or would have the amount of investment pouring into it.

It would exist as its semi-autonomous militia zone dependent on the presence of American jets to enforce a no-fly zone.

And how easy is it to say anything not endorsed by the militias now? Or to be a Christian. Saddam's deputy prime minister was from a Christian background. Now Christians are being persecuted all over Iraq. Or to be a woman? Or just to eat and stay alive?

It is not easy and it was never going to be easy -- under Hussein there was no progress and right now, surprise! we are fighting for progress. However, you somehow kid yourself with pure skepticism that one day the people cannot be reasoned with and peace cannot be achieved.

Peace will be achieved and there will be democracy, but there is a big if: if we fight and if we establish security.

We need more Soldiers for the occupation and we need the complete power of the American military raining upon them.

Talks of withdrawal and deadlines are the least counterproductive thing we can have being that they imply an end to our fight in the near future, a mere signal to the militias that they ought to wait us out as now al-Sadr is doing!

And God help anyone who got in our way. Your rationalisation of what took place does nothing to change the fact that many of those actions had undesired effects at the time, and have significantly contributed to the situation we are in now. Once the soviets left Afghanistan the country was shattered. We had poured resources in for the fight. We weren't interested in helping them any further. The Taleban filled the gap we left, and now we have to go back and fix what we could have prevented in the first place, and it costs more in lives, and in money than it would have done in the first place, and this is the history of our foreign policy - self interested half measures which need to be revisited within a generation and are replaced by more of the same.

None of it is the issue of Pres. Bush and at the time, the dire issues faced in Afghanistan were quite odd!

The Soviets would not exactly allow Americans to occupy their former colonial failure. We only had training facilities and no real boots on the ground.

Now, John, if you are so wise, can you tell me what we should have done?

You are proposing essentially what you are against: American occupation of a country to establish a secure government.
So you are against it in 2007 Iraq but for it in 1989 Afghanistan?

If it was possible, I think occupation and establishment of a proper democracy in Afghanistan would have been a delightful fate in 1989. However, getting the agreement of neighbors and doing so in the immediate underbelly of the Soviet Union would have been difficult.

But I would like to welcome you aboard to the an occupation that can work:

In Iraq, we have a chance to not leave a nation fractured as Afghanistan, left to theocratic tribal henchmen. But you know what it takes?

Military presence and bloodshed; bonds forged by unlimited fiscal and military support to the region; no withdrawals due to lack of troop numbers and needs elsewhere; increased security zones; a clampdown. It requires time for the schools to be secured, the power sources to be secured, the infrastructure and government to be secured.

4 years is not enough for a broken country.

I totally agree. That does not change what has happened so far, it does not excuse 4 years of atrocious decision making in Iraq leading directly to the dire straits we are in now. Yes, our only option with a shred of integrity is to stay, change tactics, and try and salvage what we can. However, the chef who rescues a ruined meal does not vindicate the chef who burnt it in the first place.

Military decision making was faulty but now more progress is being made under Gen. Petraeus' plan.

The meal was not burnt being that the outcome is going to be what it wa sintended to be.

No timeline was given for the war because frankly we did not know what one could have been, no one can predict that being the number of variables.

Don't apologise - it is good to discuss these issues with someone who believes in concrete right and wrong, and regardless of differences of opinions, believes that those concepts must influence our path in the world. makes a really refreshing change from 'they are not british / american so stuff them'.

I respect this part and though our debate may seem a little virulent at times, at least we have the mutual respect and integrity to depend on.

It is really a good thing what we are doing -- if we were Iraqis, we would be the sort of Iraqis that really are fighting for some concrete change with differing opinions.

We are showing that this is not an issue where nationality or ethnicity come into play, but conceptions of justice.

We come from differing ideological groups, similar to two Iraqis from differing religious groups, but if we can talk it out and agree to not use violence as a recourse we can achieve something.

No. And I wouldn't trust Bush, or Musharraf, or Blair or Putin, or Ahmadinejad, or Karzai or Sarkozy or any of the rest of them.

Curious, who would you trust?

It also involves selling them arms, helping them fight a long and brutal war which they didn't need but we did, helping Saddam cement his grip on power, if you go back far enough, creating the situation which allowed Saddam to come to power, failing those who tried to throw him out of power, filling our pockets in oil for food scams while the population suffered and so the list continues. We have ZERO credibility.

I understand these situations but I view them in the context of the time they were in, political goals which were absolutely necessary due to proxy wars that were being fought.

If we put the actions into the context of 2007 they are criminal just as many actions come off out of context.

We could not live as sheep in a den of wolves.

The mistaken belief that you can fight terrorism with military force, without addressing the underlying grievances which contribute to people to take up arms. Or in the case of Iraq adding to the underlying grievances which contribute to people taking up arms.

I agree -- the Philippines should be a model of how to fight terrorism to some degree. That is why a lot of the nation buildign we are doing there is vital to our successes.