Donkey: I hate to say it, but your not making any sense. Your posts are either incoherent, or apparently ambivalent to previous comments you've made, or posts that others have written in the same thread. A couple of things in particular: 1) If you don't "think" what you are "writing", don't freekin write it! How else is one supposed to interpret your posts? 2) Stop saying one thing and then saying something else. You say accountability is important, but not beneficial to "the troops on the ground", then you say it's wasteful when we should be helping the "troops on the ground". Be consistent. And read the complete argument before typing away an angry rejoinder. 3) You seem perfectly willing to justify your position at any cost. That just makes debating with you a joke, as opposed to interesting. If you are really perfectly ok with the president lying about rationale for war, I think we're done here as far as any further discussions are concerned.
What is there not to understand. If Iraq really is a soveriegn country shouldn't the Iraqis decide whether they want US bases or not? What if they don't think they will get toppled? Why is the US the one deciding who are the good guys in Iraq? You're attitude is treating the Iraqis as children where they can't make decisions for themselves.
well i said what i've said and tried to be clear as i could be given the limitations. Maybe i am making sense and you just arent understanding..? or maybe not. when i mentioned the 'good guys' i was referring to people who really want a democratic and progressive govt where one is free to exchange ideas openly and free trade..along those lines. I just mean that i dont think anyone wants to see another brutal dictator take over iraq, right? Im worried that there is someone/somegroup just positioning themselves to take over and that those guys may not try to instil a democratic govt or at least a govt that gives people some basic freedoms. and iraq should be able to decide. That being said there is always negotiotiations and lets be honest, they dont have a whole lot of power in the current situation. But, i think one could sell the idea so long as it makes sense and there is some give and take, where both sides would be satisfied. but ov
no of course not, you should no better than that. Come one though, is it really a big surprise to think that we arent told everything? it shouldnt be about the treating iraqis like they are children... i think that you have to handle the situation carefully because isnt this a new era for them? isnt this the infancy of them developing their own govt? i think it is and in that stage one has to be careful to ensure long term success.
You're still putting the US position of deciding what is right for a soveriegn country. You're worried that someone over there might try to take over so the solution you're advocating is that the US dictate their politics to them. In other words to keep someone undemocratic from taking over Iraq lets ignore Iraqi democracy and we'll have the final say. As for negotiations if Iraq is a sovereign country why should they have to negotiate their internal politics with us? Should the Democrats and Republicans negotiate the make up of Congress with the French? You're arguing that you are for Iraqi democracy but then saying that well they are in a weak position so we should force them to work with us. That is an inherent contradiction. You can't say you are for sovereignity and democracy for the Iraqis and then say but the US has the right to interfere. That isn't sovereignity or democracy.
Then why are you justifying the government's position by stating that we aren't informed? That's saying that we need to go along with the government because they haven't given us all the information. At that point the government could justify anything without having to explain it.
you are right. These are tough and tricky decision. how much do you tell them whats right? how much can you really trust those in power? how much power do/should we really use when it comes to a situation like the bases? But at this stage of the game nothing is really set in stone and things are very dynamic. Sometimes one has to step on toes to do what they feel is best and sometimes you have to sit back and just watch it unfold while you sit on your hands. there is certainly a balancing act going on. Neither extreme sits very comfortably though, i will agree with you on that.
im confused...im about done with this topic, though. my only point is that govt does things without telling the people.
way to distort a simple comment i made b/c i wasnt sure what he was saying. really? is that all you can bring up in the conversation? stick to the sidelines and making passing comments. if it was so freaking obvious why did people bring it back up like it was some revelation?
look, someone said this... and thats when i made the comment about just b/c the govt doesnt announce something doesnt mean that they dont want to do it. so please, go nip at someone elses heels or at least know whats being talked about.
Because he told the people too much, and it wasn't true, even though he swore it was under oath. As far as I know, the president has sworn no oath to disclose the reasoning behind every decision he makes.
lets review... you stated that you believe one of the reasons we invaded was to secure "military positioning". i stated the immorality of your position and the fact that of the myriad of reasons the cheney administration gave for invading iraq, none of them had anything to do with the desire to establish permanent military bases. you then went off on some strawman tangent where you claimed that i shouldnt be suprised when governments lie, when i never said they didnt or that we shouldnt be suprised. all governments lie (some more than others) and everyone knows it. that is why when your arugment is based in the fact that governments lie you become CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! hey - did you know that the sky is blue? or that puppies are cute? your line of thinking is very scary, unamerican and just plain cowardly - "just shut up and trust the government, even though they lie and we all know it".
actually high crimes are anything the congress says they are. so he can be impeached for not disclosing reasonings or because he's an dumbass or anything else the congress says.
