No refman: These are just my understanding of the situation. It includes no judgement of the Bush administration or Bush himself. We don't actually know what his strategy is at this point. And it maybe just as necessary to apply the logic of evil if Saddam is indeed evil. So don't take it the wrong way. BTW, 66% is hardly relevant in judging right or wrong. And if you look closer, the number is not simply a solid 66% for action now and unilaterally.
I rarely laugh out loud when reading, but this did it for me...Ref, you and Hayes have about as predictable responses to anything approaching this subject as anyone in here, including these ones, and you have the cahones to complain about other people making redundant arguments, and belittle their position with " not liking...blah blah..etc"..under the (possibly justifiable) position that it's all been said...but then you follow it up with a little point about how they're wrong anyways...Like the guy who says.." Ok, let's agree to disagree...even though you're wrong." Why is it that your arguments are statements of fact/educated opinion, and opposing views are merely repetetive expressions of personel preference?
Glad I could brighten your day. In my last post I never said "you are wrong." I posted the results of a recent survey and used it to say that the right/wrong decision can't possibly be as simple as the Bush detractors have said. I think you may have misunderstood my post.
If I misunderstood your post then it's my bad. Generally when persons on this BBS make posts similar to yours it is because they intend to simply slam the President as a bad guy. It has been done time and again. I never intended the poll results to be an indicator of right and wrong. I posted it to illustrate that the issue is not as clear as some make it out to be. The 66% is comprised of those who want action now, want action with consent of Congress and those who want the blessing of the UN. At the end of the day though, all of those groups agree that action is needed against Iraq. Personally, I think that Congress should consent prior to action...but that's just my opinion.
I don't believe I did, and the second sentence in your last response to Michecon kinda confirms my position...
Have you read the similar posts from Batman Jones, glynch and others? They same very much the same thing...followed my a direct slam on Bush, not as a President...but often as a human being. All of a sudden I feel like I do when posting something to New Yorker in the fair weather fan thread. Draw your own conclusions.
Given that this is a subject that people are very opinionated about.. What this signifies to me: 1. The 66% figure I saw earlier seems to me to be a bit hollow, in that I view this as perhaps the percentage of people who've geared themselves up for an impending conflict with Iraq. I don't necessarily view this as any sort of objective third-party assessment of the merits of a war. 2. Clearly, this move is a response to the effective job Mr. Bush did of making his case in the UN a few days ago. Given the momentum of shifting opinion, Iraq needed to to something dramatic or else submit to shifting public opinion, and the inevability of a military stomping by the UN (more or less). I hope this serves as a lesson to the Bush White House that there is some use to stating your position and laying out the evidence, as opposed to saying "Trust us, we're the US government, and we must have good reasons." 3. More often than not, Mr. Hussein has used statements like this to deflect the brunt of negative public opinion, but has obfuscated when the time came to cary out his promises. That is, after all, what got him in this position to begin with. I hope that everyone can at least understand a general distrust of his word when he's doubled back on it so often in the past. I hope, however, that he does follow through on his word. Though I find him to be a generally evil man, I can't say that I think much more of many of his peers in region.
This is potentially great news. War might be avoided. Nothing is certain until it's complete, but all in all it's at least an open pathway to avoid a bloody war. The Bush administration can claim victory, and Bush can look like his speech to the UN is behind it all. I think it could be a great victory for Bush. That victory could be snatched away if the hawks look like they really weren't serious about wanting inspectors back in and correcting the broken UN resolutions. If they still pursue an invasion of Iraq, then they will look like the ones who aren't trust worthy and made the UN look like fools. I will remain cautiously hopeful.
I honestly think that those who assume this will be bad for Bush are underestimating him... IF you assume that his motives for engaging Iraq were to win political support, this is damn near as good and nowhere near as risky. It may not be his first choice, but it wouldn't take any kind of political mind long to find a way to spin this as a victory for Bush's hard stance. However, if he is zealously commited to a war with Iraq, etc., and goes ahead with his plans after this ( and, I assume, some other kind of spin) then, yeah, he'll look pretty hawkish...I just don't think he's that stupid. On the other hand, do I think that there is any chance that the supposedly unconditional inspections will go off without a hitch? No, not even if Sadaam is being genuine. Things involving international relations, opposing cultures, and legal interpretations rarely do.
Refman, MacBeth is accusing you of hypocrisy. Accusing me of taking personal digs at Bush doesn't help your case. You do the exact same thing, regularly, with politicians you don't like. And I've never attacked Bush as a human being. I've said he's dumb, I've said he didn't deserve the privelege that's been afforded him, etc. But I haven't said he's a bad person. My hatred of Bush is at least even to your personal disgust with Clinton. As a person. And, while it certainly flavors my opinion of the administration, it's hardly been the point of my posts on Bush policy, re: Iraq or anything else. You know that. You would also seem more objective if you didn't push that poll so hard. The 66% comes with a good many qualifiers, which are not out of line with the opinions of the people with whom you disagree, both on this board and in Congress.
When I read your posts regarding President Bush I just come away thinking: "Wow...he REALLY hates Bush." If I have taken the wrong impression then it's my mistake. I know people who worked for Clinton while he was in Arkansas...and knew him. I have heard horrible stories, which I am really not at liberty to discuss (at least not publicly). That really has colored my impressions of Clinton much more than any of his actions during his Presidency. I openly said that the 66% cotains lage groups who want Congressional approval (as do I), and/or UN approval. If there are other qualifiers, the Newsweek people failed to list them in the article I read. Again...sorry for any misunderstanding I may have about your opinions of the President.
No worries, Refman. Anyway, you're right. I do really hate Bush. But not as a person. I don't know him as a person and I don't have cause to know him as a person. I hate him as a president. Anyway, no worries.
Not sure why you want to draw me into this, Macbeth. You will often see me use the word (usually in caps) 'FACT' in my posts. When I do you can rest assured it is a FACT, and that I can (and usually do) site sources to confirm it as FACT. The rest of the time it is my opinion, just like everyone else's. Naturally I think I'm 'right' or I wouldn't post it. As for this particular thread, my post starts out with the phrase "My best guess..." which is hardly a declaration of FACT. I know its frustrating for you to get beat over the head so often with FACTS, "including these ones" (lol), but that is a problem with your argumentation, not mine.
I don't 'hate' him as a President, but I have been pretty pissed at times. I think that his stance on the environment is worse than laughable, its disgusting. Ever since he was elected, my hopes relied on the quality of his staff, just like with Reagan. Could it be that one of his more bizarre speeches (that scared the tar out of the Europeans for being too simplistic) is actually having a positive effect? http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...d=514&u=/ap/20020917/ap_on_re_as/nkorea_japan Although analysts intially worried that the 'evil' speech would harm the democracy movement in Iran, some report are actually implying the opposite. I just hope that there is an environment left when he leaves office. One other complaint, disabled Vets have long had a crappy rule where their pension payments are reduced by the amount of their service-related disability payments. If they were just civil servants they would not be subject to these reduction; it only applies to disabled Vets ( ) Congress passed a law to rectify the situation, but Bush is threatening to veto it since it is 'too expensive'. He's prepared to send some more into harm's way, but if they get disabled, well screw'm?
The thing is, I think you really believe this stuff... Okay, one last time with feeling.. 1) Your application of facts is usually either flawwd or besides the point, IMO. Ex. You state that isolationist policy is wrong, despite the fact that my position wasn't advocating isolationism to begin with, and then query " And where are these countries now? Nowhere." Or some such thing...For entirely academic purposes I point out that the two greatest examples of said policy are Ancient Egytpy, and China, for whom the policy of isolationism worked so well that they were world powers significanlty longer the the U.S. has even existed, and additionally, both still exist as intact nations to this day. To which you respond with a "Fact" about Cleopatra's Needle, and the British takeoever of Egypt in the 19th century...which is a fact, but completely besides the point. My point wasnt' that the isolationist policy of Ancient Egypt worked up to today, my point was that it worked, and kept them a world power, for about TWO THOUSAND YEARS...and China's policy worked for over ONE THOUSAND YEARS...Both of which make the U.S.' two hundred+ years of existence seem fairly insignificant, let alone our less than 100 years as a world power. See, this is what I mean about making a "fact", but completely missing the point. 2) The reasons I disengaged from the argument with you were 3-fold...1) You stated that you/we were hypocrits, and you had no problem with that, at which point any further political discussion seems irrelevant to me. If you are not going to assume any consistent moral basis for your position, then we're merely talking pragmatism, and the discussion becomes fairly moot and uninteresting.2) Despite complaining that I never answer your questions, which I then proceed to do again, you follow that up by avoiding one of mine, and answering the other in the exact non-relevant manner which I had not only asked you to avoid, but had written an entire short story to illustrate, leaving me to believe that you either don't get it, or intentionally avoid answering salient questions if they might just refute your argument. Either way, what's the point of going on? 3) You actually blew me away when you got upset with glynch, whose assertion that you use nuclear scare tactics you felt 'lableled' you. Now considering that this complaint was coming from someone who had previously called me " a loon " , "insane", " bent", and my positions " stupid", dspite the fact that I had never, ever made a personal remark about you, and I just equated this latest argument of yours as a continuation of your Proud To Be A Hypocrite thing, lost what respect I had for you, and tuned you out. It's like the kid who throws the most stones being the first to cry moral indignation when he feels another kid is doing the same... So, feel free to believe that your 'factual' based arguments have in any way refuted mine, I don't even think it's close.
Man, the same people have been having the same arguments in thsi forum for months. I can't wait till basketball starts up again, and we can debate whether or not to allow UN inspectors into Kelvin Cato's garage, or the merits of a preemptive strike on Salt Lake City.
I'll support a pre-emptive strike on Salt Lake any day of the week. We need to remove John Stockton ASAP.
i'm hoping this is good news...the optimist in me wants to believe this can be taken care of without bloodshed.... but saddam has done this before...he has a way of delay, delay, delay...
MadMax: Easy, man. Bush should set a tripwire. Instead of talking about not trusting Iraq... send inspectors tomorrow, and demand to go wherever they want. If Iraq bars their way, even once... the inspector should look the guy in the eye and ask, "do you want war?" If they're still barred... the bombs can start falling from the sky 5 minutes later, and Bush will look much better than if he'd attacked without the "trip wire." This is actually good for the US. Saddam has created a situation in which he must act in a precise, defined manner. Whatcha think?
