Howard Dean

ris said:
pakistan is currently a military dictatorship, but in this case the us/uk deem it ok to be a military dictatorship, have and pursue nucleur arms and be a threat to the stability of the region.
Click to expand...
Elections will be in 2004 if i remember correctly. Personally i believe that Musharraf is in favor of continuing the democratic process. Time will tell i guess.

i don't disagree that the ideology of creating a democratic iraq is a fine cause, i am not sure that the domino effect is a reality however. my concern comes in the execution of the action and support given to a country that through the actions of conflict we share responsibility for in the short term. i look at the situation in afghanistan, something that seems to have been largely ignored since the moves into iraq and am disappointed.
Click to expand...
I agree. For every 50 million the US is spends on reconstruction in afghanistan (on a monthly basis) we spend a billion on military.
I also believe that the UN is sitting on its hands on this one just to make the US look bad and this really pisses me off.

I think the evidence that the action taken against iraq was part of the war on terrorism is slim at best, information being revealed here during the hutton enquiry seems to indicate that the threat posed by iraq in terms of terror or to the region was quite low.
Click to expand...

I agree with this also(to an extent). I never believed this was the reason the Bush administration wanted to go into Iraq and i thought all along that they felt this was the only way they were going to get their foot in the door. I would have much preferred it if they had simply stated that according to their theory that a foothold in Iraq was simply the best way to get started. Right or wrong atleast they'd be avoiding all the accusations of lies & starting a war just for the sake of starting a war.
But what do we do now? As far as i'm concerned all we can do is follow through. If we're going to follow through the only reason the UN should be sitting on it's hands is if it wants to see the US fail. I believe the UN can help tremendously without helping Bush or defending his credability in any way, shape or form.
 
i think the safety and security of baghdad is somewhat debatable, even the red cross who are known for working in some of the most violent and difficult situations are deciding to leave iraq as it is unsafe. bbc more. the us appears to be asking for help from the un becuase its troops are so stretched bbc more

bear in mind that this improving security situation is still claiming lives of soldiers daily and probably untold numbers of civilians that don't get press.

i read this the other day, i'm sure its just evil leftist propaganda but i found i interesting. guardian
it seems to indicate that the power situation has yet to convince the iraqi people.
 
It's all debatable. I know why the red cross want's out and it's simply because for the first time the enemy is not distinguishing between US UN or Red cross. The red cross itself means shit to the extremists. They've been in much worse places where the enemy actually recognized them as neutral or even friendly.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
It's all debatable. I know why the red cross want's out and it's simply because for the first time the enemy is not distinguishing between US UN or Red cross. The red cross itself means shit to the extremists. They've been in much worse places where the enemy actually recognized them as neutral or even friendly.
Click to expand...
The red cross to them indicates Christianity etc...now being Muslim extremists who view christianity as then enemy I'd imagine they'd be high on the target list.

This one is more to do with israel/palestine but I thought it appropriate. I read it in a paper a while back.

some f*ck from Palestine said:
Of course isreali civillians are a viable target as are children in schools and women in the fields. They can be conscripted into the military at anytime therefore our blessed martyrs are making pre-emptive attacks on the Zionist aggressors
Click to expand...

I hope that explains my point a bit (which was its a religious thing as it always is in the middle east)
 
The "Red Cross" doesn't do the middle east. It's the "Red Crescent". Open season on all those willing to help should get the world more involved, as long as the US stays in charge.
 
When I first heard about Howard Dean running I was excited, --someone who claimed that he wanted to bring the Democratic Party back to its liberal roots. Alas, having investigated his stand on the issues I see that he is just another centrist. In fact, his stand on education and gun control is troubling to say the least.

Guess I'll be throwing my vote away on the Green Party again. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top