I posted a link to a story outlining former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft's opposition to an initiative against Iraq. He was NSA under Bush, Sr. and one of the most vocal proponents of the Gulf War. When he goes public calling this thing a mistake, it's a harbinger of big trouble for the Bush admin if they choose to go forward. No one replied. Now even Dick Armey's speaking out against this plan. He's among the most hawkish congressmen serving right now. So much for a coalition or even strong American support for this ill-advised attack... From the Drudge Report: http://drudgereport.com/flash5.htm House Majority Leader warns against unprovoked attack on Iraq Thurs Aug 8 2002 16:30:05 ET House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) addressed an Iowa crowd on Thursday and raised questions about whether he would support an American war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein. "My own view would be to let [Saddam] bluster, let him rant and rave all he wants and let that be a matter between he and his own country. As long as he behaves himself within his own borders, we should not be addressing any attack or resources against him.' "If we try to act against Saddam Hussein, as obnoxious as he is, with proper provocation, we will not have the support of other nation states who might do so." "He has a right to hold dominion within his own national boundaries, as obnoxious as he is and as comical as he can be." Developing...
I think there is defnitely some division. I can't believe I'm actually in agreement with Dick Armey. What's this world coming to? The senate needs to hold hearings and either decalre war or not. I doubt there is enough support for the votes needed to declare war, which may be why it hasn't been brought up yet.
Wow. Is the bad economy and the coming election year playing a role or are they genuine on those remarks?
Scowcroft article: http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen080602a.asp As far as Armey's concerned, I've always thought he was an idiot who cared far more about polling points than issues. But for the life of me, I can't figure out why he'd be against this. There must be a quirk with his constituency, or someone's paid him for something, because ideologically this is right up his track. More accurately, not supporting it would be waay off track for him... Ah well, the rest of congress is on board. No matter.
treeman: You're right that this is way up Armey's alley. You're wrong that most of Congress is behind it. It's instructive that Mid East hawks like Armey and Scowcroft are against it. England's having trouble with it too. And Saudi Arabia has gone out of their way to say they won't support it. You just don't attack a sovereign leader unprovoked. That's what Bush is trying to do. I can't tell you why. No one knows why. It's insanity and it will destabilize a region which is already more unstable than any other. For no immediate reason. That's why people who hate Saddam are saying this is a bad move. Anybody remember Bush in the presidential debates? How he said we should be humble? How he said we shouldn't be the world's police officers? I know 9/11 changed things, but this much? To where we just go remove world leaders unprovoked? Even his closest ideological allies think this is a bum move. And that it will undermine our "war" on terrorism. And, for once, I agree with a twerp like Dick Armey. The world is a fascinating place.
I forgot...they're our "friends." Trust me...you'll know why should we leave Saddam alone and he gets nuclear weapons. The threat of having nuclear blasts in large US cities is immediate enough for me. You may not agree with his politics, but he's not a twerp.
Refman, you know I like you, but Armey IS a twerp. We have them in the Dem party too. Recognize and acknowledge. It will boost your credibility. Yes, Saddam might get nuclear weapons. So might a lot of folk. We used to be real scared of Castro too. But we didn't go bomb his country to remove him when he wasn't directly threatening us. That's part of the deal. We have a deal, in case you didn't know. It goes like this: We have agreed not to go to war just to remove leaders we don't like (or are even threatened by). We go to war for clear purposes which, by the way, never include removing a recognized leader of a recognized country, no matter how deplorable we might find him. I mean, for God's sake, we didn't do it with Hitler. We shouldn't do it with Saddam. And if Saddam was another Hitler (like Bush Sr. said he was), then why didn't we remove him in 91? I'll tell you: Because of the deal. We DO NOT do that. In fact, no serious power in the world does that. Why? I don't know. Maybe because it could easily be done to them. Do you really think we couldn't just assasinate Saddam? Because we could. We, as a country, as a society, as a world, find that too distasteful. So what do we do instead? Bomb the hell out of the people unlucky enough to have been born there. We could have taken out Saddam, Hitler and/or Castro if that was our aim. We DO NOT do that. And we do not attack countries because we're worried about what sort of capabilities they might seek or might have in the future. If Bush does that, he will make history. And even many of the most hawkish members of his own party will have a hard time supporting him. You're a reasonable guy. You're far more reasonable than a show pony like Dick Armey, whether you want to own that or not. Know better. At least as well as he does.
Heres the deal. Personally treeman, I've seen your kind before i"d beat your pussie ass all over the street. Your a densensitzed coward in my book. And your the last man id want to have in a fox hole with me. So anyway Im watching Treemans daddy on C-span the other night and hes the head of Americans foreign relation Commite i and hes discussin with a middle East Panel Realtions group about the likelihood of America going to war with Iraq. So i listen to this man speak to a panel of middle Eastern Scholar.... and he goes on for 30 minutes about how Russia and all of Our allies should support us cause they will have all the OIL they want and for Russia especially it'll be damn win win situation because they can confiscate Saddams unpayable debt by taking the northern oil fields> Well God dammit he goes on for 30 miniutes like this without once mentioning are giving thought to all the sons and daughters, and childrens lifes that will be Lost over his new ******* Visionary Oil entrepreneurship. Well, Im 25 and i have beautiful neice that I love and take care of, and i think it should be a ******* crime for an elected official to boast about war without once mentiioning all the sons and daughters lives that will be lost.
Actually Bush Sr. has come under a bit of fire ever since 1991 for not continuing onto Baghdad. It is also a foregone conclusion that when Saddam obtains nuclear weapons that he will seek to use them against the US. That scares the hell out of me. This is a guy who used chemical weapons against his own people. It's not a stretch to say he'll use nukes against us. When this comes to Congress, and it will, the measure will pass. Our survival is way too important to worry about "unwritten rules." I have come to like and respect you Batman. Sadly, this is one of those pesky issues on which we simply disagree.
Really easy to say that when you know you'll never have to back it up. Oh and learn how to spell p***y. The rest of your post was barely understandable. You should really read your post before hitting the send button. I don't know where you think that treeman expressed cowardess (not cowardNess). I bet your da too.
Hey dummy, dont attack my typos. It makes you look petty and stupid. Now, i know like minded egos stick up for eachother so I excpected another disillusioned mind to come to its relatives defense.
I like and respect you too, Refman, but there's a reason that people in the Republican party who are very, VERY comfortable with military action are uncomfortable with attacking Iraq when they haven't issued a direct threat. Ask around. Or don't. You don't even need to. I've posted articles outlining Armey's and also Scowcroft's resistance. Couple days ago this was a no-brainer to some of y'all. You thought it was a no-brainer to support this sort of thing. Turns out even the most natural supporters of this kind of action are having trouble with it. Explain the disconnect with some of the most natural supporters of this type of action. That was the point of this thread. Don't argue with me. I'm not Dick Armey. Explain why you disagree with him, and examine why someone like Armey would resist this action, when he has zero record of resisting military actions as carried out by Republican presidents. This is different, abnormal. And for a reason. I don't presume to know the reason, but there is one. What do you think it is? That's what this thread was meant for.
Batman Jones: Your post got me thinking deeper on this issue. To me, this war against Iraq, as you pointed it out, seriously undermines the rule of the game - that is, no matter how much a threat one country perceives, one doesn't go invade a sovereign country pre-emptively and unprovoked. It's just the rule of the game. This thing called threat is a subjective judgement, therefore, eliminating threats by wars cannot be counted on by the whole human race to base their lives on. Think about it, invading a country pre-emptively for the sake of self-protection is probably one of the poorest reason for invasion. That opens a can of worms if it becomes a worldwide practice. It's not impossible to see tommorow India invades Pakistan for their decade long mutual hatred, and India claims she's following US's path to protect herself from forseeable nuclear threat of Pakistan. The day after tommorow you can wake up and find Korea going against Japan for Japan's effort of going back to WWII militarism. How can the world be a safe place if the rule of the game is spoiled? In the age of economic globalization, turbulance in other regions would ultimately affect the well being of USA, and might even lead to further new terrorists against USA as she needs to choose sides in such conflicts. So in the end I am saying you words are right on.
Refman, your a just one of the guys who got there ass whipped in highschool and they're only outlet is grammer nitpicking. Your a p***y in my book. youve watched too many Cnn war stories: you've played one too many Dakota war games: you've been denied the sweet muffin, so you the idea of war gives you blue balls because you cant relate with your neighbor, hell youi cant even here the birds sing anymore. Im not like batmanjones i dont respect any man who puts an opinion, party, or idea before humanity.
hey panda, dont try to rationalize war. theres nothing more pathetic than a man trying to intellecualize war. insanity meet insanity.
First off...not many people mess with me. If you ever see me in person you'll know why. More importantly...you're an idiot.
Batman-- I don't know why Armey has done a 180 on this. All I know is that I disagree with him. Bush set the stage for this when he said that countries that sponsor or harbor terrorism will be dealt with in the same manner as those who orchestrated 9/11. He meant Iraq...among other we may find out about later. Maybe Armey will explain his position and change my mind. I'm not opposed to hearing him (or anybody else) out.
I find it funny when a man is so quick to point out a few garammatical errors. I know how minds work, you have a deep insecurity about your own self education. You equalize your own thinly veiled self-learned education by exageratting and noticing anothers few honest grammatic mistakes. Your just correcting your own insecurities bud. hey its cool, email me ill meet you where ever you want...and ill buy you a beer or we can be insecure hypocrites.
But i just find it a little cowardly how we talka bout war, when none of has ever experienced war. Does anybody have any children around here. Because if you do you know what i feel. I've been taking care of my 1 yr old neice and I dont understand how anybody can sit around and talk about war with a straight face. Talk about stupid. If men can sit around and chat and have an intellectual debate about war well then godammit there some heartless sonofabitches...i dont care if they read they bible or studied freud...they're minds are confused.. have kids...love em...love em...love em...and you'll see with me....and you'll never try to rationalize any stupid war.
