The Unnecessary War

[Shapley]

re:As for democracies in the middle-east, I thought I said successful. Sadat was assasinated, was he not? Egypt has been plagued with bloody theocratic led insurgencies ever since. Not a very good example at all. In fact, it kind of proves my point about the region.

You're still overlooking Malaysia. It's not in the Middle East, but your original post asked about Muslim countries, not Middle Eastern.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Saxy, I meant to tell you earlier and forgot; well said:

I can get that Garg is equating the waiting until we're attacked and then fighting back. We were attacked September 11, albeit not by Iraq.

etc...

I can see Bush thinking he is in Churchill's shoes trying to convince parliament that he wasn't a quack and Hitler was really a threat.

You and I diverge exactly there however. I can see Bush thinking that way but I don't believe he is justified at all. And, (don't hurt me), I think Bush has dillusions of grandeur. I've actually wondered if he thinks HE is divinely appointed.

Not long after 9/11, I remember watching CNN and they were saying they thought Afghanistan was being bombed and I thought "good riddence you dirty *&$^!"'s. They were still not quite sure Afghanistan had anything to do with anything but I was still stinging and not thinking much.

Next day, I went to the library and tried to answer some questions.
The more I learned, the more thankful I was that I personally hadn't been in charge after 9/11, what with my hot head and all.

I was suddenly glad Bush was taking his time to calm down and get the facts.

When we did start bombing, it seemed to make sense.

Now, it seems to me like Bush and I felt the same way that day but instead of going to the library (or listening to the multitude of experts at his fingertips), he went on down that half assed road I'd started out on.

Maybe he even realizes he's wrong - (he has to doesn't he?) - but has gotten in so deepley he can't save face?

I actually understand preemption. Yes, it makes sense. We don't want to be caught off guard. But Bush doesn't seem to even know who the target is.

Obviously, that is totally opinion. No matter who is right, the proof will be horrible.

[mmichaelson]

RC, of course I wouldn't throw rocks at you. . .your opinion is yours.
Thanks for the kudos on the history parallel. . .as a student of history, I TRY to see the vague references (I took many a class where it was emphasized that knowing history doesn't mean knowing events, it means understanding and trying to understand the broader significance of said events) and parallels between situations. That's why I had to call LHuffman out on that. Garg did have a valid line between the two, if vague.

After 9/11, I was positive that I wouldn't want to be in charge either. I was in class when I found out about what had happened. I had to try frantically to call someone, ANYONE would could explain to me what the *ell was going on. I was right there with you when we bombed those *&^$#(!. After all, they had attacked us right?

I was (and still am) supremely glad that Gore was not in office. We won't know how he would have handled the situation, but I can't believe he would have gone after bin Lauden at all. I think we would have sat and mourned and withdrawn into an isolationist country (which will never bode well).

I am happy that Saddam is now out of power. I am not neccessarily happy with how it occured. But I still can't say that I trust Kerry. I am going to watch the next two debates very carefully and take a full measure of the man. I still support Bush at this point, and unless something happens to drastically change my opinion, I will support him on 11/4.

I can see your points though, and you and I agree that whatever happens in November, we do not have an easy path ahead of us.

So, instead, I wish you sunshine and no more hurricanes.

[OperaTenor]

[hijack] Speaking of Tiger Woods, has anyone seen his fiance'?!! [/hijack]

RC, I think you're a peach. You give GWB far more benefit of the doubt as to our intentions in Iraq than I do. (Sorry, SB)

As for what if Al Gore had been at the switch on 9/11, from what I've been reading lately, it may have not been such a worse thing. If the Bush administration had done a better job of taking the counterterrorism football from the Clinton administration, I feel there is a chance we might have been better alerted as to the threat posed by al Qaeda. I also believe, if Gore had been President, he might have been better informed as a result of a smoother transition between administrations, along with retention of some key policy makers.
I'm not necessarily saying Gore's a better man/leader, it's just that a lot of information was there at the time, and due to the confusion of transistion, and the Bush administration's ignorance/lack of willingness to fully absorb the Clinton administration's intelligence, we didn't recognize al Qaeda to be the extreme threat they were when we were attacked on 9/11.

I highly recommend reading the 9/11 commission report, if you haven't. Absolutely riveting.

Hey Shap, I hear Malaysia's a functioning Islamic democracy.

<small>[ 10-07-2004, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

OT-

I agree with you
.
.
.
.
.
.
RC is a peach!
What, you thought I'd say something else??

[Marye]

Speaking of Tiger Woods, has anyone seen his fiance'?!!

Yowzer!

[Shapley]

OT,

Yes on Malaysia, and while it may be argued that, since the Muslim majority is slim (about 52%, I believe), it may not truly be a Muslim country, the same cannot be said about Indonesia, which is about 88% Muslim, and just held elections. Democracy in Indonesia holds strong, despite the unrest reported in such hotspots as East Timor.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Hey Shap, I hear Malaysia's a functioning Islamic democracy.

LOL. I was sort of waiting for someone else to pipe up on that one.

regarding my peachyness (sp?), thanks I guess...that was one of those backward kinda compliments (OT)

I personally feel Bush really does border on sociopathy (as Saxy points out in another post to another poster). I confess.

His is not the eccentric Churchill type IMO. But this was a conclusion I came to by taking a long arduous, critical look.

Having said that doesn't mean I think that 50% of registered voters are idiots for not feeling the way I do. Albeit, it is frustrating to be so certain I'm right and someone thinks I'm wrong.

I figure if you take it personally when someone criticizes the administration, you must feel some affinity or kinship with Bush. An attack on Bush is an attack on Christianity, conservatism, patriotism, etc...

So whatever that bond is, that may be all you're seeing. That's what scares me about Bush. I worry that people will want to "be in the club", (affiliated with the Christians, conservatives, patriots, etc...), lose site of the rest of the people, ignore those others who may be injured by the club, even strike out against those non-members. Bush actually promotes that and if you can't see it, you probably are already a member.

Hows that for unabashed! Yep, thats what I think OT and thanks for making me be so undiplomatic! (JK)

[RC]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of Tiger Woods, has anyone seen his fiance'?!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yowzer!

I'll second that Marye!
Holy shamoley!

[barfle]

For my 2¢, while I don't believe Bush is crazy, I do believe he's not leading with his intellect.

I also have no idea what Gore might have done had he been in office. One would hope that, having the intelligence data from the Clinton administration, that he would have led an investigation into the conspiracy and prevented the attacks from happening at all. Alas, we'll never know, and even if we did, it wouldn't change history.

Naturally, I get a bit hot under the collar when my patriotism is questioned because I oppose an action that I opposed before it happened for reasons I KNOW are valid (and are being proven so more and more). My BS detector is in pretty good shape, and although I've pretty much given up on at least one poster here, I don't think anyone can accuse me of backing down or even lowering myself to ad hominem attacks.

That may end up a bit blunt from time to time, but if someone is going to be offended by bluntness, they shouldn't participate in political discussions, especially ones where there's enough time to check your facts before opening your mouth (or keyboard).

Originally posted by RC
You have to stop and ask yourself, why is this such a huge issue? Why do the "liberals" suddenly care more than they have in the past? Is someone being injured? Why are there suddenly so many more "liberals" than I ever noticed before? Why has this taken up countless pages and about 5 threads on one BB?

Dead soldiers tend to bring out passions in people. And nobody who knows me would EVER call me a "liberal."

Not since Viet Nam have we had this large a military effort being made in a foreign country, and many of us feel the invasion was unjustified. I personally feel it's the worst thing this country has done since I started paying attention. When my country is responsible for an unprovoked invasion, when we have a situation that requires our military attention (where is bin laden and why doesn't Bush care any more?), then I can't help but express my frustrations and my concerns.

[mmichaelson]

"That may end up a bit blunt from time to time, but if someone is going to be offended by bluntness, they shouldn't participate in political discussions, especially ones where there's enough time to check your facts before opening your mouth (or keyboard). "

Barfle:
I'm not offended by bluntness, I am a fairly blunt person myself. But we are all adults here. There is no reason for name-calling and/or statements about groups in generic statements that do not apply to the groups in question.
Blunt is fine. Everyone has their opinions, but we should respect the opinions of others, not squelch them.

[RC]

barfle: Dead soldiers tend to bring out passions in people. And nobody who knows me would EVER call me a "liberal."

Actually, you DID notice that I had "liberal" in quotation marks implying that it is a label applied haphazzardly.

I've never been called a liberal until the last year or so either.

That is precisely the point.

Also, I think its more than dead soldiers getting peoples ire up. (that should be enough but it isn't). It wasn't quite like this during Desert Storm. And you elucidate exactly the other reasons I believe it has become an issue.

My point was, if you find yourself making excuses for the president/administration to ever increasing numbers of new "liberals", you have to wonder if those excuses have any foundation and are those people you've labeled really your adversary.

I hope I have made that clear. It sounded OK in my head.

[RC]

BTW barfle, not only do I like you because we almost always agree (almost), but you're a thinker.

I'm not sure if I've told you that or not so there you go.

[mmichaelson]

You made sense to me RC.

[Shapley]

OT,

I hadn't originally meant to say Malaysia, as I originally meant Indonesia.

However, Malaysia fits the bill quite well.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 10-08-2004, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[Shapley]

OT,

Just to show I wasn't entirely mistaken, this is from The Malays' Malaise, The challenges after Mahathir.
by David DeVoss
11/03/2003, Volume 009, Issue 08 of The Weekly Standard:

Under Mahathir, Malaysia has become the most stable, prosperous, and democratic country in the Islamic world. While most Muslim countries are ruled by theocrats, autocratic dynasties, or the military, Malaysia's 22 million people live in a parliamentary democracy with a constitutional monarch. Though the majority of the population consists of Malay Muslims, the ruling National Front coalition also includes political parties that represent Chinese and Indian interests. In Malaysia, women hold positions of influence in all the professions and wear scarves only to accessorize. On Friday afternoons, mosques in Penang, Johor, and Kuala Lumpur are packed, but so are hotel bars and
taverns.

Also, this from Encyclopedia.com:

Malaysia is a federal constitutional monarchy with parliamentary democracy. The sovereign (the Yang di-Pertuan Agong) is elected every five years by and from the nine hereditary rulers of Perlis, Kedah, Perak, Kelantan, Terengganu, Pahang, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, and Johor. The prime minister must be a member and have the confidence of the house of representatives (Dewan Ra'ayat). The cabinet is chosen by the prime minister with the consent of the sovereign. The parliament has two chambers. The house consists of 192 members, all elected by popular vote in single-member districts. The house sits for a maximum of five years but may be dissolved by the sovereign. The senate (Dewan Negara) consists of 69 members chosen for six-year terms; each state legislature elects two and the sovereign appoints the remaining 43. There is a high court for each half of Malaysia and a supreme court. Not a lot different from many western democracies.


V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 10-07-2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[shostakovich]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Speaking of Tiger Woods, has anyone seen his fiance'?!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yowzer!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll second that Marye!
Holy shamoley!

---------------------------------------------------------

Tiger is always looking to make a hole in one.
Gross Moment

[shostakovich]

But seriously, folks -----
I started this thread with why the Iraq war was unnecessary (and wrong) AT THE TIME OF THE MISADVENTURE.

That was then, and this is now. It hasn't gotten any righter. With recent comments by Duelfer and others, it is ever clearer Saddam was NOT a threat to us, was NOT connected to 9/11, NOR to al Qaeda. Yet, Bush maintains he was RIGHT in attacking Iraq, and would do it again. "Resolute" is a good word for someone who is stubbornly RIGHT. "Pig-headed" is more appropriate to Bush.
{with apologies to pigs of the world)

George Bush created a script that he is still playing out. It was largely wishful thinking to begin with. Saddam needed a beating. (Not by us.) The Iraqis would welcome us with open arms. (Some did, briefly. It didn't last.) There will be a democracy in Iraq. (If it happens at all, it won't last without foreign troops enforcing it). He (Bush) would be a war president hero. (HAH!) It might have worked in Hollywood, but reality doesn't do scripts. He thinks he's ------ Arnold Schwartzennegger. I think he's --------- Delusional.
ABBA

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by Serenity:
HIJACK!
The presidential and vice-presidential races should be totally separate!

Kerry/Cheney 2004!

That would certainly reduce Kerry's chances of assassination! :p

[Shapley]

Shos,

RE:it is ever clearer Saddam was NOT a threat to us, was NOT connected to 9/11, NOR to al Qaeda. Yet, Bush maintains he was RIGHT in attacking Iraq, and would do it again. "Resolute" is a good word for someone who is stubbornly RIGHT. "Pig-headed" is more appropriate to Bush.

It is not clear that there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. The investigation into the Oil-For-Food scandal has revealed that the connection is there.

I know that is not the same as saying there is a connection directly to 9/11. Vice President Cheney said at the debates there was a connection to Al-Queda. Edwards responded that there was NO connection to 9/11, as if the two were synonymous. The spin-meisters attempted to show that Cheney in the past had stated there was a connection between Saddam and Iraq, but all they could come up with was that he had pointed out there was a connection between Saddam and Al-Queda, and between Al-Queda and 9/11. Both of those are true.

You have to dig pretty deep in the news to find any mention of the oil-for-food scandal, and how it was being used by Saddam to undermine the sanctions, while enriching his (and Al-Queda's) coffers. Look it up, you'll find it interesting.

V/R
Shapley