Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Sep 28, 2004.
i wonder if this will be brought up in the thursday debate.
This "qualified apology" is a mere sop to those in his party against the war, especially the unions. He said he could apologise for faulty intelligence (ie blaming the spooks) but not for deposing Saddam. This is not the point. What was at fault, and what he should apologise for, was his personal error in judgment in selecting the intelligence shown to the public and, more importantly, in going along with Bush come what may.
I don't think this attempt to feign humility will have persuaded many who were previously skeptical. It's far too little and far too late.
Over here we'd settle for a little humility, feigned or otherwise.
I doubt it. If Bush apologized for Iraq, his poll numbers would plummet 24 hours later. Anyways, I know his reasons weren't about WMD, and he's sure as hell never apologizing for those so what do I care?
What I don't understand is: why the hell everyone is so pissed NOW.
Seriously, am I the only one who read the national strategy??
It was all clearly outlined in the NSS of 2002.
I donno maybe it takes a political science textbook to illuminate the writing on the wall, but I knew this was not only coming, but that it wasn't about WMD in 2002.
I mean... it's available online!
Just because you don't care for a bit of humility in your political leaders doesn't mean the rest of us don't. After all, humility was part of the Bush platform in 2000... not that it matters.
So if Bush broke down and cried like a little girl and apologized and begged forgiveness... you'd vote for him?
Oh yes, that was definitely what I meant.
not here, but i might start to consider that he might actually be human
"...on....off...on...off. Onoffonoffonoffonoffonoffonoffonoffonoffonoffonoff. On.Off..............................................................on<teehee>...off<snicker>.
(...Brought to you by the US Educational System...)
OK, you seem like an intelligent guy who is willing to listen to both sides of a story. So how can you read the link you provided and think that, and I quote, "it wasn't about WMD in 2002."
There are 9 points on the list you linked to. Point #5 reads, "Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction." From the text of that point:
OK, so I could agree with you that Bush clearly outlined his national security strategy in 2002 (I would argue that the strategy was 2 years too late--where was a strategy pre-9/11?--but that's another discussion). I would even agree with you that the strategy listed a multitude of tactics and areas of concern (IOW, it wasn't just limited to WMD). But one thing is irrefutable: concern over WMDs, and in Iraq's WMD, was a part of Bush's national security strategy.
I'd cough up my vote to see that. Of course I'm in California so it means little, but you offered!
And you ask why are we so pissed NOW? Were you around these forums 2 years ago? I was pissed THEN! (Well I hadn't joined yet, but I was lurking and I and others were definetly pissed.)
Basically it's talking about proof, not eminent threat. The WMD was purely for legitimacy. They may have even thought Iraq had WMD, however that's not why we're in there right now.
These are not stupid people, they do have a plan, it's just a little more complicated than "If we don't git them they gonna git us!"
Iraq hadn't attacked us for 12 years. From my experience, it doesn't take any 12 years to make mustard gas or Sarin.
But this policy shouldn't seem spontaneous either. There was a frontline that explained it quite nicely: Rumsfeld wrote the Neocon agenda in '91 that outlined an invasion of Iraq, it was such a PR nightmare, HW Bush had cheyney re-write it.
Basically, they think that we need to integrate the 3rd world into the west, and this is the start of a reverse-domino theory. They think that turning Iraq Democratic will start to destabilize the tyrannical surrounding regimes and they'll all go democratic too.
The more of the 3rd world we turn, the faster the rest will turn... theoretically.
Yes, that is the official position. However, do you really think Iraq was worth fighting for based on WMD alone? I mean, IGNORING the fact that there aren't any.
Neo-cons are a lot of things but they don't go to war just for Oil, haliburton, or invisible WMD.
They're not exercising pre-emption, they're just trying to save the world through superior firepower.
Now, whether you agree with them is purely based on your belief in democratic peace theory.
Peace is worth fighting for, but is that what we'll win with Iraq?
gee, there's kind of a problem w/ such actions:
ostensibly, the US is a more or less open-government democracy. an administration that feels the need to invent publically acceptable reasons for war, knowing they're false but that the war is ultimately good for the nation, runs counter to that.
seems the neocons think we're too stupid to know what's best for us. either the neocon policy isn't right for america, or the neocons know that americans are too stupid to know what's best for the country, thus destroying the democracy.
there's a nice irony in there that a (debatably) elected adminstration doesn't believe in the very mechanism that put it into power.
Good points. I'll agree that "saving the world through superior firepower" is their stated goal. But I disagree with that for two reasons:
1) Their stated goals likely aren't the same as their real intentions and their real intentions (or the real intentions of MOST politicians, for that matter) aren't likely not nearly as honorable. (Corporate interests seem to me to be more important to politicians than their constituency. At least with most of them.)
2) That their goals are acheivable. I think that was what you were addressing with your last statement. I simply disagree that forcibly trying to indoctrinate third-world masses to democracy is going to work. Rather, I think it will breed hatred and resentment which would carry over to any true Democratic government that was able to be put in place. Even if they are free and running their own government, if the majority of the people of Iraq hate the US, that will be reflected in the policies of the government.
It begs the question - is it better to enforce "democracy" through military might than to tolerate other types of regime?
Onward Christian Soldiers!
Ah the white man's burden is a heavy one, isn't it?
...beating our plowshares back into swords...
what IS exactly a "political cost"?
if only blair or bush would admit the HUMAN cost of their mistakes.
STOP thinking about yourselves and your political legacies you two twits.
I remember reading awhile ago about the Bush administration was like a black whole. Bringing down everyone affiliated with it, including (and especially) foreign leaders. Was it Costa Rica that asked to be removed from our alliance? They can't exactly burn the bridge if GW gets re-elected by speaking out against him or endorsing Kerry. But they can try as hard as they can to distance themselves from him.
Bush is very unpopular in the rest of the world I am told. And anyone who thinks that is a good thing is part of the reason why the rest of the world doesn't like us. We're like the pretty, popular girl at school who treats everybody like crap and wonders why people are nice to her face, but talk crap about her behind her back.