What if Bush was Right?

[sbsquared]

Whott - thank you for posting all those quotes! I mentioned the same thing in another thread, but didn't have the time to go back and find them. It's funny how the liberals don't have any thing to say when faced with cold, hard facts!

BTW - it's also quite telling that all the naysayers that said the Iraqi elections would never take place or that there would be such a low turnout that they would be meaningless, have been strangely silent since Sunday! They won't even give a quote when specifically asked - a la Jimmy Carter and George Soros!

[CommanderMcBragg]

I see Whott still gets his panties in a wad.

[Hook Dem]

That's the kicker. If they're not willing to fight and die to keep their democracy, we shouldn't do it for them. That was the huge mistake of Vietnam. If they country in question isn't willing to foot the bill, I'm perfectly willing to bring our boys home, and let them go down the tubes.

I will agree with you if they do not do it in due time but we must get them up to speed before we can expect that to happen. The election should bolster some confidence and go on from there. Was there not a lot of uncertainty before the masses came out to vote? Did you learn to crawl before you learned to walk?(and I'm not talking about walking on water)

[Hook Dem]

Whott - thank you for posting all those quotes! I mentioned the same thing in another thread, but didn't have the time to go back and find them. It's funny how the liberals don't have any thing to say when faced with cold, hard facts!

BTW - it's also quite telling that all the naysayers that said the Iraqi elections would never take place or that there would be such a low turnout that they would be meaningless, have been strangely silent since Sunday! They won't even give a quote when specifically asked - a la Jimmy Carter and George Soros!

Those quotes that Whottt posted are always dismissed as "old " and "under different cir stances" but the fact remains that they were said. Isn't it funny that you can ignore them when it is convenient? If anyone is to be blamed for Iraq, there is plenty of blame to go around. That talking point needs to be put to rest!

[FromWayDowntown]

Technically we have had the right to go into Iraq since 1993 when Saddam violated the conditions of the cease fire by firing on US and British planes enforcing the no fly zone. We were technically at war once he did that.

Then why didn't Bush advance that as the rationale underlying the invasion. Re-read his January 17, 2003 speech. He makes it abundantly clear, I think, that the purpose for invading Iraq is to disarm its leadership. He also makes it clear, I think, that liberation of the Iraqi people is a happy consequence of that invasion.

You can cite to many different reasons for supporting the invasion, but the fact of the matter is that Bush cited only one reason: the pressing need to divest Saddam of WMD's. Relying on breaches of the no-fly zone is, again, an exercise in justifying an invasion by revisionist history.

Iraq was in a weakened state...

Sure. I absolutely agree. But on the street, beating up on those who are in a weakened state is called either opportunism or bullying. In international politics, neither is particularly endearing.

Those of us that get the big picture . . . .

Nice generalization about those who might disagree with you. After all of teh whining about so-called liberal elitism, we get this?

. . . realize that terrorism isn't located and bred in anyone place in the mid-east...it's bred in the culture of cruelty and medevil style rule, it's bred by the leaders of the Arab countries that feel Israel is a threat to their rule...it's bred in what Arabs feel are wrongs and trespasses on the part of the US...wrongs that are no longer valid(although you could say they will find new ones)...We also realize that going into Iraq gives us a killing field for potential terrorists...those terrorists that are dying in Iraq will never commit a terrorist attack in the US.

My argument here has nothing to do with the specifics of how we fight the war on terror. My argument, in response to the article posted in this thread, is simply that concocting reasons to invade countries and then reveling in the happy consequence of exporting democracy is not a particularly strong foreign policy if you give a damn about national sovereignty and other such high-falutin' ideals. Pardon me for caring about respecting the rights of other nations!!!

There are three schools of though on solving the problems with terrorism....

The first...
Go and kick the living out of some terrorist ass...sending a message to those leaders that covertly sponsor it...as well as to the terrorists themselves...

Haven't you ever noticed that terrorists actually hate their own governments more than the US? Yet they do not usually commit attacks agains their own countries...why? Because they don't respect liberal ideals...they respect power. And those rulers keep terrorism out of their own countries by threats of violence against those terrorists and or channeling their hatred towards Israel and the US...not by going to the bargaining table with them.

The second...
Appease them...let them dictate to us the terms for peace...

Well I don't know if you have ever listened to any of these guys talk..but they don't want to sit around and sing kumbayah with us...if they were that type, they probably wouldn't target women and children.

They pretty much want to kill all the infidels...beginning with the liberals, specifically the gay ones and liberated women...

The third...
Pretend it's not a real threat...


What do you want to do FWDT?
Kick ass?
Suck ?
Stick our heads in the sand?

Look, I'm decidedly in favor of protecting our homeland. I lost a good friend on 9/11. I would prefer that I not lose any others. But, those concerns don't detract from the fact that we live in a multi-national world. It seems to me that we demand that other nations respect our borders and sovereignty, but are willing to ignore the same when we feel threatened. Again, I'm not sure that's a good foreign policy. But, I'm also not an ends-justify-the-means kind.

So, if we think (or can propose that) a nation poses some amorphous terroristic threat to our homeland, we are justified in invading and deposing the government and can such an invasion be justified by happy results?

Would we be justified in invading other nations with despotic dictators for the sole purpose of bringing democracy elsewhere?

Aren't we being inconsistent if we don't conduct such invasions? If the people of Iraq deserve our beneficience, why don't the people of North Korea, Iran, China, or Cuba?

I'd honestly like to hear the other side's responses to those questions.

[office handle]

i think most americans are down with having a war if it involves killing some non-white folks half a world away.

[office handle]

Would we be justified in invading other nations with despotic dictators for the sole purpose of bringing democracy elsewhere?

seeing as how that has become the retroactive reason for the iraq invasion, i suppose that is now the standard. its a shame that iran seems to be next on the list with the administration proceding down the same path that they did with iraq. perpetual war for perpetual peace is quite disconcerting.

you know, if bush just said that he ed up but that its a good thing that iraq is on the path now to being a democracy i think most people could handle that.

[Hook Dem]

i think most americans are down with having a war if it involves killing some non-white folks half a world away.

The mere fact that you believe that makes you a sicko.

[JoeChalupa]

I've asked myself that very question...What if Bush was right?

It's at that instant that I wake up in a cold sweat screaming.

[office handle]

its just like back in the day when we opted to nuke japan not once but twice

[whottt]

Does anyone else find Marcus pathetic?

I guess he is counting on the short memories of libs(see the fact that they have forgotten all the Democratic leaders and Bush critics saying the same thing Bush said about Iraq and WMD, for proof of this) to not remember his position in this past election.

You should start using your Extra Stout nick, it has more credibility...and the blood dong nick is more entertaining.

Oh wait..maybe it's not Marcus...Maybe someone else is capable of making 95 posts in a single day :major enrolleyes

[Hook Dem]

Does anyone else find Marcus pathetic?

I guess he is counting on the short memories of libs(see the fact that they have forgotten all the democratic leaders and Bush critics saying the same thing Bush said, for proof of this) to not remember his position in this past election.

You should start using your Extra Stout nick, it has more credibility...and the blood dong nick is more entertaining.

Oh wait..maybe it's not Marcus...Maybe someone else is capable of making 95 posts in a single day :major enrolleyes

BINGO!!!!

[office handle]

so i cant point out that this war wasnt about "spreading democracy" to begin with, even though ive never changed that position?

btw...extra stout isnt mine. but im glad you see me behind every handle

[office handle]

oh good hook dem came in with the authoritative quote of whottt. hopefully he posts a few of those spam mails he gets. i dont get enough of those from my old ass uncle already.

[whottt]

btw...extra stout isnt mine. but im glad you see me behind every handle

It's entirely possible that nic doesn't belong to you...I just assumed it was without putting a lot of thought into it.

As for why I see you behind every handle...perhaps it's because you have 6.3 billion nicks and frequently use them to get your own back in arguments.

The funny thing is that you haven't got a ing clue what my second nic is... and if you only knew how truly owned you are . But thanks for the laughs, sincerely.

[Hook Dem]

oh good hook dem came in with the authoritative quote of whottt. hopefully he posts a few of those spam mails he gets. i dont get enough of those from my old ass uncle already.

Don't be jealous kiddo, you'll grow up someday(if someone doesn't squash you first).

[office handle]

ive never used a handle to back up the argument of another.

as for you using multiple handles, whatever floats your boat. if you need to use it to back up your longwinded diatribes bully for you

[office handle]

Don't be jealous kiddo, you'll grow up someday(if someone doesn't squash you first).

yeah, we cant have any dissent because hook dem and his fellow rednecks wont tolerate that

[whottt]

ive never used a handle to back up the argument of another.

as for you using multiple handles, whatever floats your boat. if you need to use it to back up your longwinded diatribes bully for you

LOL! Don't goad me into telling you, you won't like it.

[office handle]

as for you using multiple handles, whatever floats your boat.

[whottt]

Too bad you lack the skill to pick other people's secondary nicks off...

I know, I know, mutiple nicks are meaningless to you...that's why you have 6.5 billion of them, all put to noble and honorable use.

[office handle]

the same use as your two handles or whatever

[whottt]

[office handle]

.

[Hook Dem]

yeah, we cant have any dissent because hook dem and his fellow rednecks wont tolerate that

Lighten up and take one of these!