The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

clark · 2004-06-17 14:50:51

Child Care Classes-
Now I am not trying to put words in your mouth but you seem to be against any public school class of this nature. Your arguement is that why should we force a class on people that they may not need or if they do it is years down the road.

My point is that high school is not the place where people should learn how to raise children. If you're going to have a kid then I think it is a reasonable expectation from society that the individual having the child take enough interest to learn how to raise their child on their own. By implementing this feel good program you neccessarily prevent this indivdiual from being self reliant and responsible in making sure they are adquetly prepared for the choice that they have made.

I also believe that teaching children how to raise children detracts from more important subjects that will do more to contribute to well rounded and free thinking individuals. While important skills may be learned, I think greater problems exsist within the cirriculum currently taught to children, and that child care classes address none of these issues. There is a limited amount of time and resources available to teach children, and to me, it seems our effort is better spent teaching things like writing, reading, math, art, science, civics, history, economics, sexual education, and geography.

You want to make it an elective in your local neighborhood, I advise you to go to some PTA meetings. You want to instutite this as a required course for a diploma, and I think it's a bad idea that does nothing to solve the very real problems you yourself have identified. the fact that you can't answer any of my previous questions ought to make this rather obvious.

My responce: A child care class would include sex ed. Child care starts before birth so an understanding of conception and STDs is paramount. Regardless of who has children or when or if they do, we ALL encounter children. Who doesn't? A boy or girl would benefit from a class like this regardless.

Ah, so what are you going to teach the boys about child care prior to birth? We all encounter children? We all were and are children, so what's your point? Did you somehow forget what it was like to be a kid? Most people have parents. Most people learn how to be parents based on how they were raised. If you don't like how you were raised, then get help so you don't raise your kids the same way, or don't have kids.

Teaching high school students how to raise kids is stupid. Teach them how NOT to have kids, infinitely more valuable. teach them how they control when they will have kids, infinitely more valuable to society. Make people get a liscence before they have kids, but for the love of god, don't think that a class in school is going to actually solve anything.

Case in point, can you name me all the previous presidents of the US (without looking it up)? All the States capitals? Most people cannot, and the same thing will happen with this child care class. All it is is an idea that sounds good on paper, but when you take a step back, you might realize that it's nothing more than a blanky to make us feel safe.

School Opportunity-
Again, I think you are missing my point. There isn't the same opportunity available to our nation's children. Some schools offer 3 dozen different coarses and some offer only the basics. This is determined by student interest in part, but mainly by the school's budget. And unfortunately, it is schools with mainly non-white student bodies that suffer the most. If 'Joe' wants to learn Japanesse, but can't because of budget problems, is this equal opportunity?

The world sucks and it is horribly unfair. You want me to sign a petition, I will. You want me to rule in your favor, I will. Once again, I have stated time and time again I am in favor of holding schools accountable to a minimum standard. But that dosen't mean every school needs to offer every single class that every other single school has. it is unrealistic and ultimetly defeating because different people want different things.

Set basic standards and let local communities figure out what is best for them and give them money to do it and hold them accountable to the basic standards. What mroe do you freaking want?

flashgordon · 2004-06-19 14:59:41

once again, I see people talking about Kerry not keeping his word or something; i don't know about you, but I thought the scientific method had something to do with questioning your ideas, finding fault, and then "changing" the idea; this is the problem with todays generation; they are not born and raised with the scientific spirit, or the conservatives have planted this dangerious meme about scientists backing out of their ideas and "not being a leader." Of course, leader was never a well defined word.

As for education . . . the Indians have shown the way; raise kids on the scientific spirit in a scientific environment; looks like there's too much of a social movement in america that teaches people they don't have to learn, so america is about to get swamped! The bad always get it in the ass.

deagleninja · 2004-06-20 06:16:01

Well Clark, I guess things are just fine the way they are. I mean, what's the big deal? Who cares that 1 out of 5 boys and 1 out of 4 girls are molested before adulthood. Parents are doing a bang-up job teaching their children about sex and maturity.

Let's just all close our eyes and let whatever is going to happen go on and happen. High school students are so sensitive to other peoples needs.......these school shootings aren't a big deal right?

Shaun Barrett · 2004-06-20 17:45:11

As non-American outsider, I also get the impression that Kerry is 'a man for all seasons'. It looks to me like he probably has an agenda but doesn't feel the need to say anything much about it. Kerry thinks Bush is so unpopular at present that just waffling and looking the part will be enough to get him elected.
My suspicion, looking at the way he talks about the subject, is that Kerry will place a lesser emphasis on space exploration - particularly manned exploration. Since my main reason for being here at New Mars is my passion for human exploration of the solar system, I don't like the sound of what Kerry is saying.

Mind you, it is very hard to know what Kerry is thinking just by listening to what he's saying!

flashgordon · 2004-06-21 16:06:01

i'm afraid I have to debate these pro-Bush arguements.

Firstly, the only reason Bush is into space right now at all is because of the Chinese; now, Bush didn't come into presidency thinking about space; Chinese space activities FORCED themselves on him; i've read quotes from georgie boy on space exploration websites before he became president saying space is an extreme solution from extremists.

Now, same thing with Kerry; maybe he doesn't(do you really think Georgie boy cares about space?); but, he will be forced to support and find a way to space as any president would.

Secondly, if you havn't noticed, Georgie boy tends to get us into trouble with wars and debts and the national debt is being used as an arguemnt against space development.

Algol · 2004-06-22 05:35:13

What about our invasion of Iraq?
'Saddam has missles that violate UN resolutions. He must disarm them or we will make him.'
Saddam disarmed, but was still attacked.

He didn't disarm. Iraq fired banned missiles at the CentCom HQ in Qatar in the opening weeks of the war. Patriots shot them down. Maybe there is something to that missile defense stuff.

The missiles fired at CentCom were barely illegal. It was found that if they were stripped down it could be possible for them to 'coast' a couple of kilometers further than the allowed 100km range. Claiming they were illegal was just the Bush administration clutching at straws, and they certainly cant be descibed as WMD.

The truth is that Irag did dissarm in the 90s in order to avoid invasion by the US - but Sadham needed to keep power and pride, especially in the eyes of his people (shia uprising), sons (keen to take over) and neighbouring Iran (dabling with 'nucular' technology) and so felt the need to keep up apperances.

Bush was either too stupid to see through his posturing, or was glad for the excuse. At any rate, Bush has spent over 100 $bn and commited roughly 250,000 troops in an exercise which has only served to detract from his effort in the war on terror and strengthened his enemies.

With 100 $bn in Afghanistan (and the war on terrorism proper), the taliban would be beaten, Al'Qaeda would be destroyed and Osama would be captured. And there would have probably been enough left over to cure cancer and aids.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-22 05:56:00

The missiles fired at CentCom were barely illegal. It was found that if they were stripped down it could be possible for them to 'coast' a couple of kilometers further than the allowed 100km range. Claiming they were illegal was just the Bush administration clutching at straws, and they certainly cant be descibed as WMD.

I see. First Saddam didn't have banned weapons. Then he did, but he disarmed. Then what he had was "barely illegal" and a few sarin shells are hardly a world threatening WMD stash. The line keeps getting finer.

I know, somewhere along the line we were told Saddam had the DeathStar under one of his palaces. Guess it was all a lie, ho hum.

With 100 $bn in Afghanistan (and the war on terrorism proper), the taliban would be beaten, Al'Qaeda would be destroyed and Osama would be captured.

Iraq is part of the War on Terrorism. Saddam wasn't behind 9/11, but Iraq supported terrorism. Evidence is just beginning to come to light that Iraq engaged in terrorism. Al Qaeda isn't just in Afghanistan, and it isn't just in Iraq now. It's big, spread out, and this is going to take awhile. Finally, Osama has not eluded capture for lack of resources. He's using politics. He's almost certainly in the mountains on the Pakistani side of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Unless we turn on Musharraff and risk a fundamentalist takeover of a nuclear power, he's going to continue to hide in that country.

And there would have probably been enough left over to cure cancer and aids.

That's right, throw enough money at a problem and it'll go away. :;):

Algol · 2004-06-22 08:25:40

Then what he had was "barely illegal" and a few sarin shells are hardly a world threatening WMD stash. The line keeps getting finer.

The sarin shells were found under a road which had been built after the last iran-iraq war - 20 years ago! They had obviously been forgotten - these things happen.

The Bush Administration quite simply did not have a good reason for invading Iraq. Now that it is done, i agree that we have to stay and rebuild, but we never should have gone in in the first place. On a world list of terrorist activity London would have been higher - Iran and Saudi Arabia certainly were, but neither were atacked for obvious reasons.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-22 09:06:54

The sarin shells were found under a road which had been built after the last iran-iraq war - 20 years ago! They had obviously been forgotten - these things happen.

Forgotten, for twenty years, with an improvised detonator wired in. A boobytrap, forgotten on the road for two decades that just happened to turn up when American troops rolled by? ???

Curious.

The Bush Administration quite simply did not have a good reason for invading Iraq.

Okay, just so we know where we stand, what would be a good reason for invading a country?

Mad Grad Student · 2004-06-23 22:35:48

Cobra, you bash Kerry as though he is the worst politician ever to come out of Washington. I'm curious as to where you got that idea. Rush Limbaugh? Anti-liberal conservative media? Bible study group? Here's the weird thing, at heart I am allied with the republicans on many more issues than the democrats, but that doesn't mean that I have to blindly support every major republican leader. The fact is, Bush is a very, very, very bad president and there is nothing that Kerry has done to make him seem like he would do a worse job. If there are ever real facts (as in not beliefs and speculation) that Kerry's record shows that he would do an even worse job than Bush, I'll switch alligences asap. That's what making an informed decision is all about, you look at the FACTS and then make the right choice, without your beliefs getting in the way. This goes on in science all the time, it works in politics too.

Do you remember what Bush was saying when we invaded Iraq? Something along the lines of "Iraq posseses WMDs an is a major threat to America." I have a question for you. If Saddam did have WMDs, nerve gas, smallpox, nukes, whatev, why didn't he use it as our soldiers were marching into Baghdad? He wouldn't have had anything to lose, why not go out with a bang, take us Americans down with him? Here's a reason, he didn't have them. All of the other pro-Bush arguments here have serious flaws as well. One I heard recently was that we liberated the Iraqi women. That sounds great, we get to sound all feminist and such, but there's a problem, in Iraq women could wear regular clothes, drive, get virtually any jobs they wanted, and walk outside all they wanted. In Saudi Arabia, right now, women can't show their faces without their husbands consent, have very limited carrer options, and can't even drive. They have no rights compared to the male population. If we decided to invade a country to liberate the women, why not Saudi Arabia? It just doesn't add up.

In just short of four years in the White House, Bush has cut the heart out of American stem cell research, dismantle the economy, made us loose our first-place position in science, encourage dirty coal power and cut funding to fuel-efficent car and fusion power research, and gotten virtually every country on Earth to hate the US more than they ever have. In a recent tour of Europe, Paris had to pass a temporary law preventing demonstrations because they feared horrible riots as Bush passed through the city. Can you name any president that has gotten the UN to loathe America as much as Bush has? Not likely. Now what in the world has Kerry done to make him appear less appealing to you than Bush?

The unfortunate thing is, you're probably so backed up into your beliefs that you're not going to change your views no matter what anyone says. Perhaps I'm wasting my time, but it's nice to have a good debate once and a while. I only wish that I actually had a vote to spend on Kerry this year.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 05:37:27

The fact is, Bush is a very, very, very bad president and there is nothing that Kerry has done to make him seem like he would do a worse job.

That is a belief, an opinion. Facts are verifiable, not subjective assertions.

If there are ever real facts (as in not beliefs and speculation) that Kerry's record shows that he would do an even worse job than Bush, I'll switch alligences asap.

It depends on what one considers "a worse job." On many issues it's difficult to tell where Kerry stands. On others (social spending, gun control, defense) his record is clear and in my estimation would make him a worse choice, though Bush is hardly a great one.

Beliefs are at the very heart of the matter, they determine our scale by which "worse" is defined.

I have a question for you. If Saddam did have WMDs, nerve gas, smallpox, nukes, whatev, why didn't he use it as our soldiers were marching into Baghdad? He wouldn't have had anything to lose, why not go out with a bang, take us Americans down with him? Here's a reason, he didn't have them.

Here's three more.
1) The order was given but the officers in the field didn't carry it out. There was a concerted effort to inform Iraqi commanders of the consequences of using such weapons.

2) The weapons were in ammo dumps (we have found some of them) and not ready for deployment. This seems like incompetent planning, but the history of Saddam's military doesn't rule out such blundering.

3) They knew American forces were prepared and that such weapons would have little effect. They certainly wouldn't have saved the regime or repelled the invasion. By smuggling them out they can:
A: Discredit the Coalition effort when they fail to unearth large quantities of such weapons
B: Deliver little 'Saddam Surprises' for years afterwards against civilian targets, not soldiers in full NBC protective gear. We've already seen the beginnings of this (averted nerve gas attack in Jordan)

All of the other pro-Bush arguments here have serious flaws as well. One I heard recently was that we liberated the Iraqi women.

I've not heard this one in relation to Iraq. If true, it doesn't really hold up as you suggest. We liberated everyone.

In just short of four years in the White House, Bush has cut the heart out of American stem cell research,

Agreed, bad move.

dismantle the economy

Blatantly false.

made us loose our first-place position in science

That happened some time ago, I'm afraid...

encourage dirty coal power and cut funding to fuel-efficent car and fusion power research,

Coal is cheap and available. He hasn't cut funding to fuel efficient car research, he's in fact been supportive of Hydrogen power, and fusion research has been limping along for years with inadequate funding continually 'justified' by lack of results. It's a cycle that has been going on long before Bush 41 took office, let alone George W.

and gotten virtually every country on Earth to hate the US more than they ever have.

So accepting your premise, which is a gross exaggeration; is being popular and not rocking the boat more important than doing what's right? Bearing in mind that those who have railed against the Iraq war have completely lost any credibility they may have had on human rights issues.

The unfortunate thing is, you're probably so backed up into your beliefs that you're not going to change your views no matter what anyone says.

Not at all, just skeptical of counter-claims. As I'm sure you are as well. If a single half-assed argument could sway us from our beliefs they wouldn't be worth much, would they?

Algol · 2004-06-24 08:52:09

Bearing in mind that those who have railed against the Iraq war have completely lost any credibility they may have had on human rights issues.

Please explain? ???

Palomar · 2004-06-24 09:08:10

Bearing in mind that those who have railed against the Iraq war have completely lost any credibility they may have had on human rights issues.
Please explain? ???

*Ditto.

How do you figure this, Cobra??

--Cindy

::edit:: Unless you're referring to Saddam's brutal regime, the human rights violations he inflicted on his people, and the fact that we stopped him? If YES -- well, I'm glad he's out of power; but are we obligated somehow to start war after war to stop all abusive dictators? Is that an obligation we have? How feasible and practical would such a thing be?

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 09:13:35

Please explain?

Under Saddam Hussein's regime dissidents (meaning anyone labeled as such) were tortured in unspeakable ways. Rape was not only allowed for certain government officials but institutionalized as part of the state torture. The regime killed millions of its own people during its tenure for the simple crimes of dissenting, laughing at the wrong joke, looking at a certain official the wrong way or any number of other "offenses."

Whether or not the anti-war factions choose to face it, their opposition to the war is a de-facto acceptance of the horrors perpertrated by the regime and implicitly condones such activity. One cannot claim human rights as anything more than a secondary concern after opposing at every step the very effort that would improve conditions.

EDIT::

If YES -- well, I'm glad he's out of power; but are we obligated somehow to start war after war to stop all abusive dictators? Is that an obligation we have? How feasible and practical would such a thing be?

If we claim human rights as a primary issue then Iraq was justified. Certainly we can't topple every regime that we'd like to see fall, but we can make a difference whenever the opportunity arises. We can deal with the worst offenders. Simply not being able to take on everything all at once doesn't undermine our ideals or our justification.

However, if one claims human rights as a primary issue then actively opposes an effort that will further that end, then they are either using human rights as a cover for other motives or exercising a degree of doublethink the likes of which even Orwell could barely conceive.

In either case, it severely undermines the credibility of the opposition when they vocie human rights concerns.

BWhite · 2004-06-24 09:28:28

My concerns about the Iraq war are more related to stuff like http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5279743/]this.

Continuing to argue an al Qaeda-Saddam link merely confuses our ability to understand and confront al Qaeda. Saddam and al Qaeda may both be our enemy but that does not mean they are friends themselves.

Was Saddam a bad guy? Sure but Reagan had no problem doing business with him when Iran was the enemy. Reagan was friends with Saddam at the very moment he was gassing people.

= = =

Cobra, I can better accept your "human rights" rationale for the war = IF = we now agree that preventing atrocities in the name of human rights will justify future uses of American military power whether by Democrats or Republicans.

Can we agree on that?

:;):

Palomar · 2004-06-24 09:32:57

If YES -- well, I'm glad he's out of power; but are we obligated somehow to start war after war to stop all abusive dictators? Is that an obligation we have? How feasible and practical would such a thing be?
If we claim human rights as a primary issue then Iraq was justified. Certainly we can't topple every regime that we'd like to see fall, but we can make a difference whenever the opportunity arises. We can deal with the worst offenders. Simply not being able to take on everything all at once doesn't undermine our ideals or our justification.
However, if one claims human rights as a primary issue then actively opposes an effort that will further that end, then they are either using human rights as a cover for other motives or exercising a degree of doublethink the likes of which even Orwell could barely conceive.
In either case, it severely undermines the credibility of the opposition when they vocie human rights concerns.

*Why not just work through Amnesty International?

Bush and his cronies are (supposedly) so religious -- why not just PRAY about the situation? Why do we need a God when we have to do everything for ourselves anyway? Sorry if I sound snide, but I think it's a legitimate question.

Anyway, look Cobra: We didn't even step in willingly to stop Hitler from stomping all over Europe and tossing millions of Jews into ovens and rifle pits UNTIL Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. THEN we got into the war. Okay, so in the 1940s we were a younger, poorer nation just beginning to flex its muscles. But still...

Anyway, I think Ayn Rand was right when she pointed out that the basis of all (or most) wars is *stated* to be for altruistic purposes. The U.S. didn't care about the Jews and Europeans suffering under Hitler -- until we got it on the jaw.

As Iraq goes, I don't buy this "we're giving them freedom," "we decided to help them", etc. That's naivete, IMO.

I can't believe the Iraqi war has been waged for altruistic purposes. It was for OIL and lining the pocket$ of wealthy a-holes who don't care how many servicemen/women have to die in order to better secure their own financial futures. The "little people" always get shafted. ALWAYS.

Of course I'm sorry the Iraqi people suffered so greatly under Saddam Hussein -- no human should have to experience such torture, threats of death and poverty.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 09:47:39

I see I'm arguing a finer point here than I initially suspected, greater clarification is in order.

Continuing to argue an al Qaeda-Saddam link merely confuses our ability to understand and confront al Qaeda. Saddam and al Qaeda may both be our enemy but that does not mean they are friends themselves.

Agreed, though in all fairness we don't know what connections there were, if any. Saddam didn't plan 9/11, clearly. Beyond that, we can't say at the moment.

Cobra, I can better accept your "human rights" rationale for the war = IF = we now agree that preventing atrocities in the name of human rights will justify future uses of American military power whether by Democrats or Republicans.
Can we agree on that?

Again, we can agree except for one tiny little 'but' that segues into Cindy's post.

I'm not arguing that human rights was the reason for going to war, merely that the war resulted, among other things, in improved human rights conditions and could easily be foreseen beforehand. WMD, oil, evil blue monkeys, the reason doesn't really matter in this case because:

We have the Left, traditionally the first to champion human rights issues willfully opposing the effort to end severe and horrible abuses.

So in short, don't believe for a moment that we went into Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrant. But freeing them from that tyrant was a result of our going in, and those who opposed our going in put themselves in the position of working to preserve Saddam's regime and therefore allow the torture, rape and murder to continue.

clark · 2004-06-24 11:29:44

So in short, don't believe for a moment that we went into Iraq to free the Iraqi people from a brutal tyrant. But freeing them from that tyrant was a result of our going in, and those who opposed our going in put themselves in the position of working to preserve Saddam's regime and therefore allow the torture, rape and murder to continue.

Fancy footwork Cobra!

Let's see if we can't break this down under some cross examination...

Agreed, though in all fairness we don't know what connections there were, if any. Saddam didn't plan 9/11, clearly. Beyond that, we can't say at the moment.

Saddam didn't plan 9/11. We have the Whitehouse admitting that they have no evidence that he did. We attacked Afghanistan because they harbored terroirsts who had a hand in 9/11. We had evidence of that.

Yet somehow, we make a jump in conclusion that we must attack Saddam because he poses a threat. A threat that has yet to be verified, a threat that communicated as immediate (more quotes?), and a neccessary action against what most of our allies said was not neccessary at the moment.

If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, why did we invade? If Saddam had no WMD, and posed no immediate threat, why did we have to invade right away and without more international support?

We were told that Saddam was linked to terroism and that we were at war with terroism so now we have to go fight Saddam because he is linked to terroism. Now, I'll buy that if it holds water, but then I look at North Korea, I look at Iran, and I see that these two nations either have WMD or are frighteningly close to producing them, and then I see that Iraq has no discernable WMD that pose an immediate threat, and I wonder what the hell is going on.

We have the Left, traditionally the first to champion human rights issues willfully opposing the effort to end severe and horrible abuses.

They are not opposing the effort to end abuse, quite the contrary. They generally laud this result as the one shining bit of redemption in the pack of lies. The oppose taking the American people, at great cost in blood and treasure, based on falsehoods, into a war fought for stated incorrect reasons.

We want to protect ourselves from WMD, fine. Let's invade North Korea and Iran. We want to fight terroism, let's invade Saudi Arabia. Don't take us on a fools errand. Don't lie to us about what we are really doing.

If we want to end human rights abuse, then let's invade Iraq- then Africa, then China, then Gitmo, then every other country that's left. But the President is playing both sides- he is lying to us, and we don't know why. Whose interest is he really serving? If Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and he wasn't an immediate threat, why are we there right now? We're supposed to be fighting terroism, not freeing the poor people of the world (i admit, I'm fine doing both, but that's not his stance).

But freeing them from that tyrant was a result of our going in, and those who opposed our going in put themselves in the position of working to preserve Saddam's regime and therefore allow the torture, rape and murder to continue.

This is by far the best! :laugh: You see, if you dissent, then you're with them. Just because someone disagree's with invading Iraq dosen't mean they support preserving Saddam. There are different paths to the same goal, and some paths are better.

I think we could have taken a better path, but we were led down the wrong one.

Ian Flint · 2004-06-24 12:07:05

Couldn't we have simply taken out Saddam with a commando raid or a smart bomb and then threaten his successor with similar treatment if he didn't treat his people better?

The Iraqi body count from this war exceeds 10,000 and the American body count exceeds 700. If human rights is at issue we must not ignore the 10,700 dead as a direct result of this war.

Also, using assasinations a threats instead of occupying forces frees the U.S. of embarrassments like the prisoner abuse scandals.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 12:29:54

Okay, Clark's got his dancin' shoes on, cue that same old song...

Saddam didn't plan 9/11. We have the Whitehouse admitting that they have no evidence that he did. We attacked Afghanistan because they harbored terroirsts who had a hand in 9/11. We had evidence of that.

Yep. We responded to an attack.

Yet somehow, we make a jump in conclusion that we must attack Saddam because he poses a threat. A threat that has yet to be verified, a threat that communicated as immediate (more quotes?), and a neccessary action against what most of our allies said was not neccessary at the moment.

Okay, one step at a time. After 9/11 the Administration woke up. "Holy shit, they can do this?"
"Yes, Mr. President."
"Well, what can we do about it?"
"Hit them first. Call it pre-emptive action."
"Well, I don't know Dick..."
"Look, me and Paul got this all worked out, it's what needs to be done."
"What if the American people don't go for it? We can't just go around starting wars."
"They'll thank us later. It's that important, we can't let this happen again."

Oversimplified, but there it is.

So, now they have to justify action based on suspicion and probability. If we take too long, someone hits us again and the people arguing against the war turn and ask "Look, why didn't you do anything to stop this?" You can't win.

So the Administration says to our allies "Hey, we're sick of playin' around with this Saddam guy. We're takin' him out, you in?" A few said yes, a few said no, a few just waited to see where the wind was blowing. Pretty standard response, really.

If Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, why did we invade? If Saddam had no WMD, and posed no immediate threat, why did we have to invade right away and without more international support?

Saddam did have WMD, but just for the sake of argument we'll pretend he didn't.

As I've said before, we're in a war. Not a campaign against a specific terrorist organization, not a policing action in Afghanistan, but a war against terrorism, all of it that threatens us and our allies.

We can't go stomping into Saudi Arabia, it would be bloody as hell and damn disruptive. Besides, it would alienate all the other Arab states who are supposedly "allies." That will not do. But Iraq, nobody likes Saddam, it sends a message, we open a new front in the terrorists' backyard instead of waiting for them to come to ours. Iraq was an opening move in a much broader strategy.

We were told that Saddam was linked to terroism and that we were at war with terroism so now we have to go fight Saddam because he is linked to terroism. Now, I'll buy that if it holds water, but then I look at North Korea, I look at Iran, and I see that these two nations either have WMD or are frighteningly close to producing them, and then I see that Iraq has no discernable WMD that pose an immediate threat, and I wonder what the hell is going on.

Iran is unstable already as far as their government's hold is concerned. The idea is that a free Iraq would be the final push, letting Iran fix itself to a degree. I don't entirely subscribe to the theory, but it does have some merit. The same could hold true with Saudi Arabia to a lesser extent, if carried through.

North Korea? Problem. If we take direct military action we'll have that little jumpsuited goofball over there popping rockets all over South Korea, Japan, and anything else in range. And if the Chinese butt in we've got a big turdburger on our hands.

But if we can intimidate Kim Jong Il into backing down, the risks drop dramatically.

We want to protect ourselves from WMD, fine. Let's invade North Korea and Iran. We want to fight terroism, let's invade Saudi Arabia. Don't take us on a fools errand. Don't lie to us about what we are really doing.

Hopefully we can deal with those problems without having to invade them all. Iraq fits in on the strategic level, one which quite frankly the American people have neither the patience nor the inclination for.

With democracy, sometimes you have to lead the people where they don't want to go. Sometimes they have to be tricked into doing what's right. It's an ugly truth that too few can accept, but there it is.

Assuming of course that apparent 'lies' in fact were, and not honest errors. Either way, the end result is the same.

If we want to end human rights abuse, then let's invade Iraq- then Africa, then China, then Gitmo, then every other country that's left.

I'm up for it if you are, starting with Cuba.

This is by far the best! You see, if you dissent, then you're with them.

Read in what you will, such was not my intent. But opposing action to end a crime, whatever your reasons, has the effect of aiding the commission of that crime.

Oppose those who opposed Saddam, and in a sense you are helping him.

Couldn't we have simply taken out Saddam with a commando raid or a smart bomb and then threaten his successor with similar treatment if he didn't treat his people better?

Perhaps, but then we don't assassinate foreign leaders. Somewhere along the line some people decided it's dishonorable and looks bad.

The Iraqi body count from this war exceeds 10,000 and the American body count exceeds 700. If human rights is at issue we must not ignore the 10,700 dead as a direct result of this war.

I assure you I'm not ignoring it. I'm not sure about you're Iraqi dead figures, but you may be right.

Still, we've improved the overall situation. Civilian deaths are unfortunate, and American forces have taken great pains to minimize them. Dead terrorists, guerrillas and the like? I'm not terribly concerned about that. We went in to kill those very people, after all...

Also, using assasinations a threats instead of occupying forces frees the U.S. of embarrassments like the prisoner abuse scandals.

Certainly, but if you really want to see the world hate us just wait until we start bumpin' off foreign leaders we don't like in the dark of night.

BWhite · 2004-06-24 12:41:35

We are in a war and the enemy is the radical strain of Wahabi Islam.

Those guys HATED Saddam about as much as they hate us, maybe more so because we are merely infidels and Saddam is an apostate Muslim who only embraced Islam after Gulf War I.

In 1941, Joe Stalin was a pretty evil dude. Stalin clearly rivals Saddam and Hitler on the evil meter. But for the US to attack Russia in 1942 would have been pretty stupid, right?

Saddam regime change enhances Wahabi/al Qaeda power, unless we create a stable, secular, prosperous Iraq.

If we fail in round #2 then round #1 was a mistake.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 12:45:14

If we fail in round #2 then round #1 was a mistake.

As is always the case.

clark · 2004-06-24 12:55:37

So, now they have to justify action based on suspicion and probability. If we take too long, someone hits us again and the people arguing against the war turn and ask "Look, why didn't you do anything to stop this?" You can't win.

The suspision and probability dosen't seem to hold up. I would also have an easier time of accepting their decisions if i didn't feel I was being lied to the entire time. I understand your point, i understand the necessity, and it is because I understand that I tend to like it when my leaders can be trusted. I do not believe we can trust this Adminisration.

So the Administration says to our allies "Hey, we're sick of playin' around with this Saddam guy. We're takin' him out, you in?" A few said yes, a few said no, a few just waited to see where the wind was blowing. Pretty standard response, really.

We didn't have to invade right away, we could have taken more time to win over more allies. The go it alone startegy has cost us more in blood and treasure. It may have been neccessary to invade Iraq, I won't dispute that, most people don't. However, what is being disputed is the manner in which it was done. The sacrifice that was imposed upon us for no discernable reason.

I can agree with the broader strategy, but it seems rather ad-hoc to me in the execution. It seems other influences dictated decisions, as opposed to what is the best way to execute this course of action.

As I've said before, we're in a war. Not a campaign against a specific terrorist organization, not a policing action in Afghanistan, but a war against terrorism, all of it that threatens us and our allies.

Threatens us how? With non exsistant WMD that have disappeared into the sands? While we're marching in the sands, we have effectively tied up all of our fighting forces. It forces us to conceed more to the other "terroists" while we try to pull ourselves out. It forces us to stop-gap our troops. It forces us to pour even more billions into emergency defense funding bills instead of modernizing our forces. We end up with less flexibility in dealing with actual crises while were off dealing with our manufactured ones.

We didn't need to do this right now, we didn't need to do this in this manner. We may have needed to ultimetly do this, but I think it could have been handled better.

We can't go stomping into Saudi Arabia, it would be bloody as hell and damn disruptive.

How much you paying for gas? Going into Iraq is bloody and disruptive, and the Saudi's seem to have more to do with funding the actual people who have been attcking us than Saddam ever might have been.

Besides, it would alienate all the other Arab states who are supposedly "allies."

We've alienated them anyway. It's our support of Isreal in the Palestinan issue that does more damage than anything else. The same people who would be alienated by an invasion of Saudi Arabia hate us to begin with.

North Korea? Problem. If we take direct military action we'll have that little jumpsuited goofball over there popping rockets all over South Korea, Japan, and anything else in range. And if the Chinese butt in we've got a big turdburger on our hands.

Well, seems we're in a quandry there. So why remove our troops from the area? Why provide aid? Why even submit to any talks? This must be the "intimidation" you were talking about.

We can't respond to any moves made by North Korea because of our little adventure in Iraq that requires us to commit all of our fighting forces there. If we had more international support in Iraq, we would be able to respond. We have lost the ability to manuever. It is a big f*cking startegic mistake.

It's why Iran can basically give us the finger now. We're f*cked to try and do anything about it while we're stuck in Iraq. And we're stuck there because Gerogie boy decided to go half cocked by himself for no real and apparent reason.

With democracy, sometimes you have to lead the people where they don't want to go. Sometimes they have to be tricked into doing what's right. It's an ugly truth that too few can accept, but there it is.

i'm willing to accept it. If you're going to lead in front though, lead well, choose well, and make sure you know the path ahead. You're basically saying, "I know best."

Well, we've walked behind long enough, and I get the distinct feeling that our glourious leader need to stop and ask for directions because I for one feel lost.

But opposing action to end a crime, whatever your reasons, has the effect of aiding the commission of that crime.

When he got up in front of the American people, and before Congress, asking to do this, he said it was for WMD's. No legitimate person is saying that we should allow those crimes, they are opposing how this action was planned and executed.

They are faulting Bush on his decisions, not on his goals.

But hey, he can't think of a single mistake he has made. Allah be praised.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-24 13:39:08

The suspision and probability dosen't seem to hold up. I would also have an easier time of accepting their decisions if i didn't feel I was being lied to the entire time. I understand your point, i understand the necessity, and it is because I understand that I tend to like it when my leaders can be trusted. I do not believe we can trust this Adminisration.

Our conduct in all affairs, not just with Iraq, must now be based in part on suspicion and probability. Otherwise we'll find ourselves responding to another 9/11.

Now, let's assume that Bush did lie to get support for this action. Yeah, that sucks. Lying bastard. Do you really think this would be the first time an Administration has told a bold-faced lie to the American people? And I don't mean stupid bj'r lies like Clinton, but great big war-inducing earth-shattering fabrications.

In a democratic system, those in power can't be completely honest or fully explain all matters. Far too many people haven't the frame of reference to understand it, the interest to examine it, nor the inclination to deal with it. An Adminstration that shared every little detail would be paralyzed.

Expect some smoke and mirrors, it's par for the course.

We didn't have to invade right away, we could have taken more time to win over more allies. The go it alone startegy has cost us more in blood and treasure.

We dickered with the UN for over a year, after they refused to enforce their own resolutions for twelve years! Almost forty countries went in with us. Do we have to spend another twelve years convincing the French and Germans?

I can agree with the broader strategy, but it seems rather ad-hoc to me in the execution. It seems other influences dictated decisions, as opposed to what is the best way to execute this course of action.

Perhaps, we are not privy to all that goes on behind doors. Valley of darkness. Just keep walking toward the next hill...

Threatens us how? With non exsistant WMD that have disappeared into the sands? While we're marching in the sands, we have effectively tied up all of our fighting forces. It forces us to conceed more to the other "terroists" while we try to pull ourselves out.

The terrorists are stretched far thinner than we are. Repeated intercepts have been made of requests for more weapons, more money, more men. None are available. They are fighting desperately and fiercely because they know how important this battle is. If we succeed in remaking Iraq it delivers a crushing blow to them, and the only way we can truly fail is if we decide to.

How much you paying for gas? Going into Iraq is bloody and disruptive, and the Saudi's seem to have more to do with funding the actual people who have been attcking us than Saddam ever might have been.

With all due respect to anyone who has friends or family in Iraq (I do) by historical standards this is going incredibly smoothly. Saudi Arabia would be a much bloodier fight, and we'd be forced to use a much heavier hand. If we need to fight that battle we can win it even now, but if it can be avoided even in part by rolling over a proxy now, it's better in the long run.

We've alienated them anyway. It's our support of Isreal in the Palestinan issue that does more damage than anything else. The same people who would be alienated by an invasion of Saudi Arabia hate us to begin with.

The Palestinian issue is more of that smoke and mirrors. It's a convenient front.

The people of those Arab states may well hate us by a majority, but many of their governemnts recognize the need to work with us. If we invade Saudi Arabia, an "allied" nation on paper, we will alienate those governments who will see the end of their days looming and desperately try to prolong them.

Well, seems we're in a quandry there. So why remove our troops from the area? Why provide aid? Why even submit to any talks? This must be the "intimidation" you were talking about.

We need to show the North Korean leadership that we can and will hit them hard if need be, while at the same time giving them a way out. Making them too desperate will precipitate a war we'd rather avoid. If rattling the bones of Baathist Iraq helps accomplish this, it's worth it. Basic Sun Tzu.

We can't respond to any moves made by North Korea because of our little adventure in Iraq that requires us to commit all of our fighting forces there.

Of course we can. We simply cannot respond with the same sort of 'benign' hand we'd like to. In Iraq we are doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. If we became less concerned about that we could make more progress with fewer losses to our own troops.

I don't advise this as it creates further problems later on, but the fact is that our troops in Iraq are not delivering the full impact they could muster. We are not so bogged down or overwhelmed as it may seem. We're just very restrained.

But hey, he can't think of a single mistake he has made. Allah be praised.

That's politics. Even if Bush believes he totally screwed up, he can't say that. The Dems are drooling everytime some reporter tries to get him to say "I'm sorry" because they'd like nothing more than to run an ad with that on every network from now 'til November, appropriately distorted for maximum impact. For some an apology would help, but for the vast majority who seek one it's nothing more than a political weapon.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-24 13:44:33

Come on now, everybody knows we really did it for the oil.

Weapons of mass destruction, sure. Terrorism, maybe. Even so, if Saddam Hussein had been dictator of a few thousand square miles of sparse, basaltic mountain scrub instead of one of the highest yield oilfields on the planet, he'd still be sitting pretty in his palace.

The threshold of "evidence" was low because the United States needed it to be.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-06-17 14:50:51

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#27 2004-06-19 14:59:41

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#28 2004-06-20 06:16:01

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#29 2004-06-20 17:45:11

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#30 2004-06-21 16:06:01

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#31 2004-06-22 05:35:13

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#32 2004-06-22 05:56:00

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#33 2004-06-22 08:25:40

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#34 2004-06-22 09:06:54

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#35 2004-06-23 22:35:48

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#36 2004-06-24 05:37:27

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#37 2004-06-24 08:52:09

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#38 2004-06-24 09:08:10

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#39 2004-06-24 09:13:35

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#40 2004-06-24 09:28:28

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#41 2004-06-24 09:32:57

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#42 2004-06-24 09:47:39

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#43 2004-06-24 11:29:44

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#44 2004-06-24 12:07:05

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#45 2004-06-24 12:29:54

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#46 2004-06-24 12:41:35

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#47 2004-06-24 12:45:14

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#48 2004-06-24 12:55:37

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#49 2004-06-24 13:39:08

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#50 2004-06-24 13:44:33

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer