War on Terrorism: I just don't get it

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by Chewbacca: President Bush has just recently started being honest with his rhetoric of 'democracising' the middle east. The neo-cons that make up his administration have been pushing for that since the end of gulf war I. WMDs and The war on terror was simple and effective fear-mongering propoganda.

I think history has shown clearly enough that a democratic form of government is the most stable. Why would any rational person not want this to happen? [/QUOTE]correct me if i'm wrong, chewbacca, but i think your point is that Bush and his administration lied to the american people to make it happen.

Originally posted by Azred: Even if the "liberator" mentality falls apart as you say it does, how could it be wrong to protect national interests?

well, normally when one "protects" they are "defending". this was an unprovoked act of agression... and that's exactly why bush and co lied to the american people - they needed the people to believe there was provocation, else they couldnt execute the grand plan of "democrisation".

Originally posted by Azred: ...the real reason that no one can seem to bring about any sort of lasting peace in the Middle East is because no one there really wants peace, they want victory.

absolutely agree with you there. i cant see how an american invasion has achieved anything other than throwing fuel on the fire, though.

[Djinn Raffo]

C'mon sultan! Democratization is a grand cause! And if it is lies that make it happen so be it! The world is built on lies after all.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Azred: I think history has shown clearly enough that a democratic form of government is the most stable. Why would any rational person not want this to happen?

Not necessarily. Do you feel that Russia is more stable now than when it was part of a communist state?

so, djinn, we should keep lying just to be consistent?

surely the legacy of the greatest superpower the world has ever known can be something better than that.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Azred: When Islamic groups are bombing Muslims during Ramadan in Riyadh I fear that the Middle East is going to kill itself completely.

The target was the foreign compound, and the lifestyle of the residents clearly showed that they were *not* muslims. Just because someone is from Lebanon or Eygpt, it does not make them a muslim.

The attack was shocking - but it wasn't directed at muslims.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Azred: The most miserable failure of Bush, Sr.'s Presidency was the failure to remove Hussein in 1991; this would have given Iraq 10 years to form a stable government, improve its infrastructure, rebuild its economy, etc.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I hate it when folks get this one wrong. Interviews I watched with Bush, Sr., Colin Powell, and Scwartzkoff were clear: the UN allowed them to (1) oust Hussein from Kuwait and (2) damage his army so it could not threaten the region again. They were specifically NOT to drive to Baghdad. Bush, Sr. respected the rule of law. His son does not. This is why I repsected the elder much more that the younger.

[Davros]

Well said TL - couldn't agree more. His pappy was a good president - much beter than the son.

[Azred]

Originally posted by sultan: well, normally when one "protects" they are "defending". this was an unprovoked act of agression... and that's exactly why bush and co lied to the american people - they needed the people to believe there was provocation, else they couldnt execute the grand plan of "democrisation".

All national leaders lie; this is simply part of life with politics. A majority of the American people are so woefully uninformed, though, that they wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face.
Unprovoked, most likely. Unnecessary, definitely not.

Originally posted by Donut: Not necessarily. Do you feel that Russia is more stable now than when it was part of a communist state?

It has its problems, but at least they have the chance at more stability now than what they used to have. Unfortunately, so many people there lived for so long under less-than-perfect circumstances that they cannot easily adapt to a new life of possibilities.

Originally posted by Skunk: The target was the foreign compound, and the lifestyle of the residents clearly showed that they were *not* muslims. Just because someone is from Lebanon or Eygpt, it does not make them a muslim. The attack was shocking - but it wasn't directed at muslims

That makes it ok? I have had Muslim friends; they swam in bikinis, drank alcohol, etc. Do those choices makes them not Muslim?
The rabid groups are going to self-destruct the entire region.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Wrong, wrong, wrong. I hate it when folks get this one wrong. Interviews I watched with Bush, Sr., Colin Powell, and Scwartzkoff were clear: the UN allowed them to (1) oust Hussein from Kuwait and (2) damage his army so it could not threaten the region again. They were specifically NOT to drive to Baghdad. Bush, Sr. respected the rule of law. His son does not. This is why I repsected the elder much more that the younger.

Ok. Point taken. However, I dislike the UN to the point that I couldn't care less what they say. Hussein should have been removed in 1991 because the long-term benefits would already be seen and the region would most likely be more stable.
I suppose we'll simply have to "agree to disagree". [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Actually, Azred, we don't disagree so much nowadays. In 1991 the UN was a force. Now, it's largely a farce. I'm all for the rule of law, but when the body entrusted to carry out the law becomes unable/unwilling to do so, there's a problem. Chancellor Vallorum, I call for a vote of no confidence.

[Timber Loftis]

Here's some good Repug twattle from an idiot over at NRO regarding Bush, Sr. and finishing up Saddam the first time. It's in the middle of an attack on that evil bastian of liberal hate, Andy Rooney. Just an FYI on the issue.

http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0311120830.asp

Rooney goes on to quote from The World Transformed, a book written by Brent Scowcroft and George H. W. Bush. In the book, Bush went to some length to justify his decision to not finish off Saddam at the end of the Gulf War. He wrote that he didn't want to disturb our Arab allies and wanted to avoid tying down American troops in a difficult occupation that could become an "unwinnable urban guerrilla war." Rooney, who never found much to admire in the earlier President Bush while he was in office, now finds him a fountain of wisdom when his words can be twisted to condemn a different situation. Rooney inserts "We should all take our father's advice" into the speech he wants the younger Bush to deliver.

GHWB's failure to finish off Saddam at the end of the Gulf War was a costly error. It was as if FDR had ended World War II with Hitler still in control of an unoccupied Germany because getting rid of Hitler might have upset pro-Fascists outside of Germany and because occupying Germany would have been difficult. The senior Bush thought to isolate and control Saddam through U.N. sanctions. Unfortunately, Saddam scornfully defied the U.N., which did nothing in return but pass resolutions it did little to enforce. Still in power, Saddam ruthlessly suppressed Shiite rebels and kept his prison camps humming with brutal activity. Iraq is peppered with mass graves filled with corpses produced after the decision was made to not go to Baghdad. It was a terrible mistake that Rooney seems to think was a good thing to do.