so to be clear, it would have been more just, not to say of greater international "legitimacy" to leave saddam in power to rape, pillage his own people whil enriching himself and his sons through the UN oil-for-p*rnography scheme?
1. the perception is wholly inaccurate and a product of liberals' obession with discrediting GWB at all costs. 2.Bush did focus on human rights from the beginning, as I've noted elsewhere the past few days, as well as WMD. to be sure, what made it worth the the cost in american blood and treasure was the b****es' brew of terrorist sponsorship, proven international menace, and WMD that was saddamite iraq. that WMD "stockpiles" have not been found in now way invalidates the other, equally important, reasons for taking saddam out.
Hmmm, I don't think its consistent to say they've opposed it for some time and that they've recently started questioning it. Maybe its fair to say they've had doubts for awhile and recently started to openly question it. Its not fair to say that those who've opposed it since the beginning have always considered it unjust and illegal. Some thought it wouldn't work (practicality), some thought the cost would be too high, some that is was none of our business, some that it was unjust but not illegal etc etc. I only say this because I've spent a lot of time getting the 'anti-war' crowd to distinguish their opinions. It is not a fair representation for you to say that the majority of the anti-war crowd that has opposed it from the beginning feels as you do.
Well, from previous debates we know that you and I disagree on whether Bush focused on WMDs to sell the war. Since that argument is never resolved, we'll just skip that one for now. However, would you grant, at least, that the moderate swing voters supported the war more so because of the WMDs and perceived terrorist connections than human rights concerns? Again, not arguing about whether this perception is correct, but just wondering if you agree the perception was there.
I think you misunderstood me there. I was saying a lot of I's have recently come to oppose the war but many other I's have for some time. Awkward language. My bad. I don't mean to say every war opponent feels as I do. As you rightly point out there are so very many reasons to oppose this war there will undoubtedly be different sorts of opponents. And I won't pretend to know the reasons that each of the many opponents oppose it. I can't read minds, certainly not across oceans. It is likewise unfair though to imply that the 'unjust' business is limited to some small sample, particularly with regard to world opinion. While you might have spent significant time nailing down specific reasons for opposition on this board (I haven't been around much - I don't know) or elsewhere, I doubt you've got your finger as solidly on the pulse of the great many war opponents overseas. FWIW, I really don't need this war to be 'unjust,' 'illegal' or 'immoral' to oppose it. 'Unnecessary' was quite enough for me.
OK, I think I misunderstood you. I thought you were speaking of US opinion, hence the 'look who else joined.' Whether people elsewhere have opposed the intervention since the beginning doesn't seem to be relevant to that.
for me, the justification, uhm, rather the reason i supported the war, (since at heart, it doesn't really matter to me whether the admin shares my reasons) was the combination of saddam's acknowledged terrorost support, his known possession of WMD, his demonstrated hostility to the US, and 9/11. one cannot ignore the context. neither, however, can one ignore the very real human rights abuses that occured under saddam, nor can one ignore that US policy in the region, and in the arab/muslim world in general, has not been successful over the past, oh, 45 years or so. it was clear to anyone able to examine the issue dispassionately that short of renouncing support for israel, that the only way to change the status quo was to radically rethink our policy in the region. i did not need george bush to tell me that. nor did i need him to justify the war to me. the benefits of removing saddam were, again to those not predisposed to oppose alll things republican, self evident. i have said before that were clinton been president president now, liberal opposition to the war would miraculously evaporate. the truth is democracy in iraq, and the larger middle east, is now in extricably linked to US security. anyone who wishes the US not succeed in iraq, is, by definition, acting against US interests. the oil/haliburton arguement is a canard. i clearly do not agree with everything Bush has done in office, nor do i wholeheartedly agree with how this war has been waged. but it had to be waged, and it must succeed.
why is this important? do you think france should be consulting the US now while it faces very real internal threats? US security was at stake. i personally do not give a damn whether someone in Paris or Berlin agrees with me in that regard.
Even though we may disagree on some of your logic, clearly you gave this issue some thought. You've weighed the costs of the war and occupation against the possible benefits of installing a democracy in the Middle East and you've decided that the benefit outweighed the cost. However, I believe a significant number of moderate swing voters did not see the issue the way you do. They support human rights and democracy, but they are not willing to commit to a massive war/occupation effort to get it. Although you didn't need President Bush to make the case for you, these moderate voters did need assurances that this war was a necessary act of self defense due to WMDs and terrorist ties. For these swing voters, they are finally beginning to think that Bush was misleading about the WMD/terrorist argument. Since they would not have supported the war based purely on humanitarian justifications, they are understandably pissed off.
I totally agree with this and have said it before that this administration has Wilsonian / liberal ideals. I would go even farther and say that this administration and invasion is a good example of the problem with trying to enact Wilsonian / Liberal ideals by engaging in a short sighted simplistic solution with little or any consideration of costs or execution.
That argument doesn't hold water. There are human rights issues just as bad by Muslims building an Islamic State occuring right now in Darfur. Sadaam gassed people 20 years ago. If we were about human rights, we could SAVE lives right now by entering Darfur. Bush wasn't concerned about saving lives when we entered this war. Stop fooling yourself. And now are we reaping said benefits? Probably. But that's politics. That being said, the Republicans got pissed at Clinton for participating in a legitimate coalition in Bosnia and Clinton got railed for bombing an Osama training camp. So don't try to make it sound like the Republicans are any better than the Dems when playing politics. And it makes you feel proud that America is extricably linked to daily road-side bombs in Iraq? Does it also make you feel proud that Afghanastan is the largest opium producer in the world? Well, by definition, what is success? Since the president never told us, by definition, it is hard to accuse people of wishing for failure...since it was never defined. As such, many people would argue we ALREADY failed. If we were gonna wage war, I just wish we would have avoided a long protracted ground war. For that, I now give Bush Sr a LOT of credit. He just dropped some bombs and got out. He looks like a genius to me now.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." -Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "My job as majority leader is be supportive of our troops, try to have input as decisions are made and to look at those decisions after they're made ... not to march in lock step with everything the president decides to do." -Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) For us to call this a victory and to commend the President of the United States as the Commander in Chief showing great leadership in Operation Allied Force is a farce" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." -Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of presidential candidate George W. Bush "I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarifiedrules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) "Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99 "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) true, except it was pretty weak to tell the iraqis to rise up against saddam and we would help them, only to bail out and leave them high and dry.
Dude! basso and company don't want to read that. Are you determined to ruin their day?? Keep D&D Civil.
would've been nice to see some context for the W quote, but in any case, a bunch a of quotes from Tom Delay and Sean Hannity are pretty meaningless in this context. as far as i know, hannity is not an elected official.
as far as i know, tom delay is an elected official. as far as i know, bush was governor of texas. as far as i know, trent lott is an elected official. "You can support the troops but not the president" -Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) why does tom delay seek to undermine the president? you like to accuse "liberals" here of undermining the war effort and hurting troop moral by posting their opinions in the d & d. over and over again you accuse "liberals" of suporting terrorists b/c they disagree w/ bush. you do realize that we are not elected officials either? (at least most of us) hannity has a little more power than someone on a basketball message board. dont you think the things he said were undermining the president and his war effort? why the double standard basso?
