A link...we've found a link
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Squiggy
ThunderDick
I'm amazed at how quickly the right is coming up with alternate justifications for this war. I was first deemed a sheep for not believing that the original premise was true, now the W 'followers' seem to minimize all of it. And it bothers me how some seem to shrug and say "so". Sorry Ards, but those who died deserved the truth. I doubt any of them would've done this just to make Ards feel more comfortable. And still we've not addressed the problem that provided cover for this action.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
I was speaking more of the general case he makes for meeting the threat posed by militaristic dictatorships in a timely and proactive manner. He's much more eloquent on the subject than Bush.
It's a virtue of the British system that a PM has to be able to think on his feet. I don't think Bush does that very well. He needs time to think, and people to help him put his thoughts into words. In a casual one-on-one conversation with ordinary Americans, he seems to do pretty well, but to communicate through the media he has to be repackaged. He's not dumb, but he's not an intellectual either, and he doesn't speak their language.
That's really why there's such a disconnect between Bush and Democrats. Democrats, particularly the far left ones, want leaders who are intellectuals. I think that they feel like a construction worker has been made head of the Harvard Philosophy Dept. I'm not fond of anti-intellectualism, but the way I see it, what passes for intellectualism these days could use a little construction worker common sense.
It's a virtue of the British system that a PM has to be able to think on his feet. I don't think Bush does that very well. He needs time to think, and people to help him put his thoughts into words. In a casual one-on-one conversation with ordinary Americans, he seems to do pretty well, but to communicate through the media he has to be repackaged. He's not dumb, but he's not an intellectual either, and he doesn't speak their language.
That's really why there's such a disconnect between Bush and Democrats. Democrats, particularly the far left ones, want leaders who are intellectuals. I think that they feel like a construction worker has been made head of the Harvard Philosophy Dept. I'm not fond of anti-intellectualism, but the way I see it, what passes for intellectualism these days could use a little construction worker common sense.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
You're minimizing again, Gonz. The premise was hidden active WMD production and his intent to use them against us. Not the beakers left over from chem experiments long ago. So far everything they've purportedly 'found' has proven to be a non-issue. Even the chem agents in the euphrates was a bad test that they couldn't reproduce.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Squiggy said:
You should go back and read what I wrote on this subject before. I'm not coming up with alternative explanations, I never cared whether Iraq was directly connected with Al Qaeda or not. Try reading The Threatening Storm: The case for invading Iraq by Ken Pollack. He doesn't rely on any connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq to make the case for war with Iraq. He specifically says that the connection is probably not very strong.
For my part, I've always thought that the case for invading Iraq was simply strategic. We're at war with the middle east, so the question is simply where do we invade first? From a diplomatic standpoint, Saddam has given us 12 years of defying UN weapons inspections as a sufficient cause for invading Iraq and effecting a regime change. Now we will have a staging area for further action in the region. Syria is positioning themselves to be next on the list, with Lebanon part of the package. Iran seems far less interested in a direct conflict with the US, and I have high hopes that regime change there will come from inside the country.
Countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia who have tried to maintain a pro-American foreign policy and an anti-American domestic policy are going to get bit in the ass by it. They've fomented anti-American feeling to the point where they're going to be caught between the threat of unrest in their own populations and a war against the US that they know they can't win.
This war could well last 10-20 years, going from hot to cold and back to hot.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Squiggy said:
I'll be damn. You mean we agree on something?
Just to make it clear, Bush was never my first choice for president. I disagree with him vehemently on the subjects of school prayer, abortion, and stem cell research. For me the 2000 election was a choice between the distasteful and the completely unpalatable. Still, I think he's turned out better than I expected, particularly in his conduct of the war. I'm much more hardline on it than he is. I've been afraid that he would wimp out like his dad did.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Gonz said:
Give it up, Gonz. We could discover that Osama bin Laden was Saddam's love child, and that still wouldn't be a close enough link for the people who oppose the war. Their agenda has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. When they talk about needing a link, or point to Saudi Arabia as a bigger supporter of terrorism, it's just a smoke screen. There are two types of anti-war protestors: Those who don't want us to fight back at all, and those who don't want the Republicans to get credit for being the ones to do it. That's what it comes down to.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Squiggy said:
I know that many of the men who participated in the 9/11 attack were Saudi. My point is that if we had decided to invade Saudi Arabia first because those men participated in the attack, you still wouldn't be in favor of it. You would be yelling that the attack wasn't justified, because we couldn't hold the Saudi government responsible for the acts of a few radicals operating outside their boundaries. You would also be saying that we were only trying to get our hands on their oil.
Squig, admit it. You're not going to support anything this administration does. You're blinded by partisanship.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Wrong Ards. I've been touting that I am angry as hell that we haven't gone after SA. I've never said anything less. And the money trail for the financing was traced to SA too. Not just the participants. Thats part of what pisses me off about the rest of it. I've often stated that if you wanted my support to take out Saddam, then say it that way. Don't say yhat we're doing it in the name if the 9/11 victims. Thats bullshit.
Ardsgaine
Active Member
Okay...
Squiggy, Saddam needs to go. I would really, really, like your support for this war. I know that those bastards in SA have it coming too, but if you think we're catching flak from the international community over Iraq, just imagine what we would catch over trying to invade Saudi Arabia. Not only that, if we invade SA, then it becomes a holy war immediately, and we'll be at war with every single Muslim country in the world. Don't forget that Osama's big deal with us was that our troops had occupied the land of the holy places, Mecca and Medina.
Now, I'm not saying we couldn't win that war, and there's a part of me that really wants it. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was in favor of issuing an ultimatum to every country over there: surrender or be annihilated. No ground troops, just a few well placed nukes. I think there's a good case to be made, though, for a more gradual approach.
So where is the best place to start if we want to take it one country at a time? How about the one country over there that none of the other Arabs like? Sure, some of the people think Saddam's a cool bad boy, but their governments would love to see him out of the way, if it could be done quickly. So you see, we get our foot in the door, and then we isolate them one at a time and take them down like that.
Now, I don't know if that really is Bush's strategy. I more hope it is than expect it is. Even if it isn't, I kinda think he's going to get dragged into a wider conflict because Syria's not going to behave. I'm willing to just take it one country at a time, though. If he lets me down, I'll drop him like I did his daddy.
So, what do you say? Can I talk you into taking down Iraq first, or do you still want to go whole hog? If you want to nuke them all... I mean, if you really, really want to do it... Well, hell. I guess I'll go along with it.
Squiggy, Saddam needs to go. I would really, really, like your support for this war. I know that those bastards in SA have it coming too, but if you think we're catching flak from the international community over Iraq, just imagine what we would catch over trying to invade Saudi Arabia. Not only that, if we invade SA, then it becomes a holy war immediately, and we'll be at war with every single Muslim country in the world. Don't forget that Osama's big deal with us was that our troops had occupied the land of the holy places, Mecca and Medina.
Now, I'm not saying we couldn't win that war, and there's a part of me that really wants it. In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I was in favor of issuing an ultimatum to every country over there: surrender or be annihilated. No ground troops, just a few well placed nukes. I think there's a good case to be made, though, for a more gradual approach.
So where is the best place to start if we want to take it one country at a time? How about the one country over there that none of the other Arabs like? Sure, some of the people think Saddam's a cool bad boy, but their governments would love to see him out of the way, if it could be done quickly. So you see, we get our foot in the door, and then we isolate them one at a time and take them down like that.
Now, I don't know if that really is Bush's strategy. I more hope it is than expect it is. Even if it isn't, I kinda think he's going to get dragged into a wider conflict because Syria's not going to behave. I'm willing to just take it one country at a time, though. If he lets me down, I'll drop him like I did his daddy.
So, what do you say? Can I talk you into taking down Iraq first, or do you still want to go whole hog? If you want to nuke them all... I mean, if you really, really want to do it... Well, hell. I guess I'll go along with it.
