Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Palomar · 2005-06-22 06:26:47

Does the threat of death really work on a group of people known for blowing themselves up?

*Yes, that's essentially the question, isn't it?

And of course if they don't care about ending their own lives for the sake of their beliefs, they sure as heck aren't going to think twice about killing someone else for those beliefs either.

Elementary.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-06-22 06:34:29

Sounds like Juan Cole wants to have his cake and eat it too.

So Bush did the right thing in the wrong way? Sounds familiar.

Could he do the wrong thing the right way? which would have been not going into Iraq after getting rejected by the UN.

Would that make sense?

See Bill, I'm converting.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 06:37:00

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/cole-on … .html]Juan Cole on the two sides of regime change:
Bush's turn to illegal aggression contained the seeds of the failure of his Iraq policy. If he had remained within international law, he would have either had to give up the invasion or he would have gone in with the full support the international community, which would have given him the kind of troop strength and administrative expertise that might have made a success of it all.
In a nutshell, Bush got greedy for personal political gain and FUBAR-ed it up.

*This isn't just about Dubya, you know. There are servicemen/women in the line of fire at this very moment.

Will the Left be happy if all those servicepeople truly died in vain?

--Cindy

P.S.: And what happened to the "wait and see" approach? Oh, nevermind...

clark · 2005-06-22 06:43:52

I don't think the left can ever be happy, they have too much vested interest in whining and complaining. I mean, if they had to stop, they would hear the howl of the vacuum inside their heads.

I just wonder how those poor service men and women got into that line of fire.... hmmmmm. Any guess?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 06:46:04

In a nutshell, Bush got greedy for personal political gain and FUBAR-ed it up.

There has been and continues to be a fair amount of FUBAR-ing going on, but this "illegal war" stuff has absolutely nothing to do with it. Countless UN resolutions against Saddam's regime called for a series of specific requirements to be met under threat of of compulsion. The Cease-fire agreement after '91 allowed resumption of hostilities should Iraq not abide by the terms, which in numerous ways they did not. The US Congress approved the action.

The UN is not the "global governing body" some seem to think it is. It's a debate club, and a corrupt one at that. Depending on it for "rule of law" is like waiting for the cops to bust the local drug lord when the police chief is on the take and retiring soon anyway.

Or to quote Patton, "there's only one international law. The best army."

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 06:53:15

I don't think the left can ever be happy, they have too much vested interest in whining and complaining. I mean, if they had to stop, they would hear the howl of the vacuum inside their heads.

That's. . . actually not that far off. :laugh:

Dammit clark! I'm going to have move even farther over just to keep this interesting.

clark · 2005-06-22 06:56:34

:laugh: You keep right on going... over the cliff.

So the UN is not the global governing body, and is corrupt to boot, yet you site UN resolutions as justifying the invasion of Iraq. A corrupt debate club sanctified an invasion supported by a Congress whose members are saying they wish they hadn't supported the action.

Now you want it both ways! :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 07:10:58

So the UN is not the global governing body, and is corrupt to boot, yet you site UN resolutions as justifying the invasion of Iraq. A corrupt debate club sanctified an invasion supported by a Congress whose members are saying they wish they hadn't supported the action.
Now you want it both ways!

Not at all, I'm merely saying that the UN is not the supreme authority in such matters but that even if it were, it repeatedly gave implicit authorization. It's the old "they aren't opposing, they just don't matter" stance.

As for what Congress "wishes", great. I wish wars never happened and people never got sick and no one ever died but lived happily ever after in a magical land of bountiful goodness. Oh damn.

They voted based on the information at the time. They made a decision. Maybe they were hoodwinked, maybe they voted just becasue popular opinion made it attractive, maybe they really wanted to spill some blood. Who knows. They approved it, case closed. Next.

clark · 2005-06-22 07:20:37

I find the moral certainty refreshing. Generally, I’m used to second guessing my convictions. Not now though. I’m right! Oh, that feels good.

Well, I have to agree, a Senate and House controlled by Republican’s rallied around a Republican President, and gave him authorization to use force, assuming he had to. The question will always be, did he have to?

I agree that he did. It was US policy, and the opportunity to attack during a time where most of the American population was inflamed made it a perfect chance to take advantage of events to meet a defined end. Whether or not we had top attack for the reasons stated, that is immaterial. What was done was for the betterment of the nation and the world, even though there was no open and frank debate about it. We can’t have that kind of conversation. Why? Because others may not agree, and we can’t afford that.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 07:31:22

Clark needs a webcam so we can see who's holding the pistol behind him.

Suffice it say, whether we made the best choice then is of little consequence when weighed against what choices to make now. You can only start from where you are.

BWhite · 2005-06-22 07:31:32

In a nutshell, Bush got greedy for personal political gain and FUBAR-ed it up.
There has been and continues to be a fair amount of FUBAR-ing going on, but this "illegal war" stuff has absolutely nothing to do with it. Countless UN resolutions against Saddam's regime called for a series of specific requirements to be met under threat of of compulsion. The Cease-fire agreement after '91 allowed resumption of hostilities should Iraq not abide by the terms, which in numerous ways they did not. The US Congress approved the action.
The UN is not the "global governing body" some seem to think it is. It's a debate club, and a corrupt one at that. Depending on it for "rule of law" is like waiting for the cops to bust the local drug lord when the police chief is on the take and retiring soon anyway.
Or to quote Patton, "there's only one international law. The best army."

Okay, let us suppose Saddam was in violation of UN resoltuions. Frankly I'd say yes he was in violation.

Why does Dubya get to choose the penalty?

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 07:35:08

Okay, let us suppose Saddam was in violation of UN resoltuions. Frankly I'd say yes he was in violation.
Why does Dubya get to choose the penalty?

Because no one else would act.

If the cops you pay for won't catch the bad guys, someone else has to step up. Most likely it'll be the guy that just got mugged.

Edited By Cobra Commander on 1119447342

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-22 07:36:33

I have a strange feeling you guys have had this same discussion, oh, I dunno, 1500 posts ago.

What was the conclusion then?

Hehe, sorry for interrupting, do go on.

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 07:38:31

have a strange feeling you guys have had this same discussion, oh, I dunno, 1500 posts ago.

Feeling? It's a documented matter of record.

clark · 2005-06-22 07:41:08

Because no one else would act.

No one else would act? What about all those small eastern european countries that joined us? Don't tell me you are disregarding their valuable contributions like those pansy leftists.

No one is holding a gun to my head. Of course, they told me to say that, but at least the beatings have been replaced by the druggings.

BWhite · 2005-06-22 07:42:32

Okay, let us suppose Saddam was in violation of UN resoltuions. Frankly I'd say yes he was in violation.
Why does Dubya get to choose the penalty?
Because no one else would act.
If the cops you pay for won't catch the bad guys, someone else has to step up. Most likely it'll be the guy that just got mugged.

Heh!

Most likely it'll be the guy that just got mugged.

We weren't mugged by Saddam. Edit: Peter Goss says we know where bin Laden is but repect for Pakistani sovereignty means we cannot get the guy who mugged us.

Saddam was to be the "bait & switch" consolation prize for 9-11.

= = =

And 50% of America and the UK says it was the wrong call for Dubya and almost no one outside of teh US-UK-Austrialia says Dubya made the right call.

Bush drew for an inside straight - - and lost. And now he is trying to weasel out of paying the debt.

Edited By BWhite on 1119447839

Cobra Commander · 2005-06-22 07:52:08

We weren't mugged by Saddam.

No, but if I get mugged and I find some other mugger, I'll gladly kick his ass too.

And take his wallet.

9/11 got us stirred up and alot of people out there are in need of a pummeling.

And 50% of America and the UK says it was the wrong call for Dubya and almost no one outside of teh US-UK-Austrialia says Dubya made the right call.

Lots of people outside the US-UK-Australia don't like America anyway regardless of what we do.

For a century the UK and Australia have always stood with us. What they think of our actions carries more weight than any others. And they still stand with us.

Hell, we should start a whole new UN. An American-British-Australian alliance (or axis if you prefer to shade it that way). Maybe get the old Empire back together, looser and on better terms.
I suspect the world be a better place in that event, even if only marginally.

clark · 2005-06-22 07:53:33

Bush drew for an inside straight - - and lost.

There is nothing but jokers in this deck. And of course some others aren't even playing with a full deck.

Case in point, just read the next post...

Palomar · 2005-06-22 07:54:43

*I see someone from the upper Midwest is still ignoring questions I've asked. His prerogative, of course. Yes, I realize there's only one person here whom he wishes to discuss politics with. His prerogative too, of course.

But you'd think clearly asked, brief questions could be answered.

Oh well.

Reluctance to answer says a lot as well.

--Cindy

P.S.: Hey Josh, formal Moderator request: Change the name of this thread to "Brick Wall." Because that's what trying to discuss politics with some folks is like: Talking to a brick wall.

clark · 2005-06-22 07:56:07

Timing, they say, is everything. :laugh:

BWhite · 2005-06-22 07:58:48

We weren't mugged by Saddam.
No, but if I get mugged and I find some other mugger, I'll gladly kick his ass too.
And take his wallet.
9/11 got us stirred up and alot of people out there are in need of a pummeling.

And now we have gone a few bridges too far with almost no one in the whole world willling to lend us a helping hand.

Bush and the PNAC-ers played their Risk cards hoping to run the board and now we've come up short.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 08:01:34

*Oh, that's okay. I recall someone here (looks up) who was oh-so PRO-war just 1-1/2 years ago. Debating with Bill on and on about why we have to go to war, why it was imperative we do so.

:laugh:

But those posts aren't available for reading anymore. I wonder why.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-06-22 08:01:41

http://www.juancole.com/2005/06/cole-on … .html]Juan Cole on the two sides of regime change:
Bush's turn to illegal aggression contained the seeds of the failure of his Iraq policy. If he had remained within international law, he would have either had to give up the invasion or he would have gone in with the full support the international community, which would have given him the kind of troop strength and administrative expertise that might have made a success of it all.
In a nutshell, Bush got greedy for personal political gain and FUBAR-ed it up.
*This isn't just about Dubya, you know. There are servicemen/women in the line of fire at this very moment.
Will the Left be happy if all those servicepeople truly died in vain?
--Cindy
P.S.: And what happened to the "wait and see" approach? Oh, nevermind...

Cindy, read Juan Cole's piece in full.

Removing Saddam was a good thing and no one died in vain doing that.

Seeking to maintain US control over Iraq long after Saddam is gone? Yup. Those lives are wasted.

= = =

Also, this Administration's total failure to plan for post-Saddam realities has cost many lives.

Wasted lives. US and Iraqi.

Edited By BWhite on 1119449140

Josh Cryer · 2005-06-22 08:06:20

It's untenable to play world police force. Just look how much it's costing the US to wage war in Iraq. Indeed, a one world entity would be far more suceptable to terrorist activities than anything else.

In the end war is never the answer unless you are (truly, proactively) defending yourself.

Palomar · 2005-06-22 08:07:10

Seeking to maintain US control over Iraq long after Saddam is gone?

*I still question the validity of the Iraq war.

What, we were supposed to depose him and then just leave? That would have worked? We had to stay for at least a while to stabilize matters, right?

But we've been over this point before.

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2005-06-22 06:26:47

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#227 2005-06-22 06:34:29

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#228 2005-06-22 06:37:00

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#229 2005-06-22 06:43:52

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#230 2005-06-22 06:46:04

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#231 2005-06-22 06:53:15

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#232 2005-06-22 06:56:34

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#233 2005-06-22 07:10:58

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#234 2005-06-22 07:20:37

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#235 2005-06-22 07:31:22

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#236 2005-06-22 07:31:32

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#237 2005-06-22 07:35:08

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#238 2005-06-22 07:36:33

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#239 2005-06-22 07:38:31

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#240 2005-06-22 07:41:08

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#241 2005-06-22 07:42:32

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#242 2005-06-22 07:52:08

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#243 2005-06-22 07:53:33

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#244 2005-06-22 07:54:43

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#245 2005-06-22 07:56:07

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#246 2005-06-22 07:58:48

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#247 2005-06-22 08:01:34

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#248 2005-06-22 08:01:41

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#249 2005-06-22 08:06:20

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

#250 2005-06-22 08:07:10

Re: Political Potpourri VI - (We crashed the last one)

Board footer