The Reagans

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Strand, did you watch Tim Russert this morning? If so what was all the hullabaloo concerning Rumsfeld and Tenet?

Sadly, I missed it. I am going to try and watch the repeat later on tonight. Don't these two hate each other according to rumor?

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
Are all Liberals gloom and doom?

They must be.

I find it disheartening to read that some actually think Saddam was a threat to the world or even a specific country. No other country had been under such scrutiny as Iraq and they wouldn't have been able to wipe their asses without us knowing. The fact of the matter is that while they may have had WMDs, they don't anymore. Of course, the Bush administration would have you believe that all of the weapons were detroyed a day prior to the invasion (just as the admin. has said), but you would have to a be fool to believe that. The uranium charge was proven to be a lie, too. So, to save face, the admin. pipes in and says that the war was really about saving the people of Iraq. Yeah...okay. Why now? And why under Shrub? The admin. didn't get support from the UN because they didn't believe in Bush's reasons for war and, IMO, because he used their treaties to sway the minds of the American people (for example, claiming that the US had UN authority to shoot down anything that entered the "no-fly zone." That was a lie.) We can onyl speculate on Bush's true motives for this war, but they certainly weren't for humanitarian reasons or to fight terror. He used 9/11 to push his war on us and, sadly, the US ate it up. Christ, half of our country believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! Bush suggested that Saddam was, too.

This is his war, not ours. And has forever tarnished the image of the US.

Edited to Add: I really thought that after 9/11, the US would stop and pause to reflect on what it's done, its way of life, and its actions. Sadly, that didn't happen. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism" and immediately went back to doing everything the same way. It's quite sad, IMO.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by Rob67
Are all Liberals gloom and doom?

Certainly not me. I'm rather liberal (with a few "conservative" opinions here and there), and I'm probably the most optimistic guy you could hope to meet!

Though I'm not one to turn a blind-eye to anything.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
Certainly not me. I'm rather liberal (with a few "conservative" opinions here and there), and I'm probably the most optimistic guy you could hope to meet!

Though I'm not one to turn a blind-eye to anything.

I think optimism is the road by which things are accomplished. Always watch out for the BS from both sides!

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
They must be.

I find it disheartening to read that some actually think Saddam was a threat to the world or even a specific country. No other country had been under such scrutiny as Iraq and they wouldn't have been able to wipe their asses without us knowing. The fact of the matter is that while they may have had WMDs, they don't anymore. Of course, the Bush administration would have you believe that all of the weapons were detroyed a day prior to the invasion (just as the admin. has said), but you would have to a be fool to believe that. The uranium charge was proven to be a lie, too. So, to save face, the admin. pipes in and says that the war was really about saving the people of Iraq. Yeah...okay. Why now? And why under Shrub? The admin. didn't get support from the UN because they didn't believe in Bush's reasons for war and, IMO, because he used their treaties to sway the minds of the American people (for example, claiming that the US had UN authority to shoot down anything that entered the "no-fly zone." That was a lie.) We can onyl speculate on Bush's true motives for this war, but they certainly weren't for humanitarian reasons or to fight terror. He used 9/11 to push his war on us and, sadly, the US ate it up. Christ, half of our country believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! Bush suggested that Saddam was, too.

This is his war, not ours. And has forever tarnished the image of the US.

Edited to Add: I really thought that after 9/11, the US would stop and pause to reflect on what it's done, its way of life, and its actions. Sadly, that didn't happen. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism" and immediately went back to doing everything the same way. It's quite sad, IMO.

Questioning our administration's decisions and policies is every American's right. I think the Bush administration had felt that if the UN wasn't going to enforce its resolutions then somebody should. I am not the biggest fan of how they tried to convince the American people that it was just. They should have just stated their main intent from the beginning, which was to oust Hussein and implement a Democratic state in the Middle East as a way to combat terror in the region, in the long run.

But what are you implying by saying the US should stop and reflect on what it has done?

Are you insinuating that we are at fault for making Islamic Fundamentalists angry and causing them to kill innocent people?

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
They must be.

I find it disheartening to read that some actually think Saddam was a threat to the world or even a specific country. No other country had been under such scrutiny as Iraq and they wouldn't have been able to wipe their asses without us knowing. The fact of the matter is that while they may have had WMDs, they don't anymore. Of course, the Bush administration would have you believe that all of the weapons were detroyed a day prior to the invasion (just as the admin. has said), but you would have to a be fool to believe that. The uranium charge was proven to be a lie, too. So, to save face, the admin. pipes in and says that the war was really about saving the people of Iraq. Yeah...okay. Why now? And why under Shrub? The admin. didn't get support from the UN because they didn't believe in Bush's reasons for war and, IMO, because he used their treaties to sway the minds of the American people (for example, claiming that the US had UN authority to shoot down anything that entered the "no-fly zone." That was a lie.) We can onyl speculate on Bush's true motives for this war, but they certainly weren't for humanitarian reasons or to fight terror. He used 9/11 to push his war on us and, sadly, the US ate it up. Christ, half of our country believes that Saddam was responsible for 9/11! Bush suggested that Saddam was, too.

This is his war, not ours. And has forever tarnished the image of the US.

Edited to Add: I really thought that after 9/11, the US would stop and pause to reflect on what it's done, its way of life, and its actions. Sadly, that didn't happen. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon of "patriotism" and immediately went back to doing everything the same way. It's quite sad, IMO.

It wasn't "some" - It was the world through their UN representatives for 11 years as well as the last U.S. administration, which used essentially the same intelligence as the current administration. That France, Russia, and Germany acted on financial reasons to block the war (they wanted to keep their contracts and loans with Iraq intact) was significant and, IMO, caused more bloodshed.

I also disagree and think Bush's reasons were mostly humanitarian for both the Iraqi people and the U.S. citizens. Otherwise why go to such an extreme. One could argue it was to to give Halliburton and Bechtel money. But, certainly money and alot of it could have been given to them via defense contracts, etc., without all of the bloodshed, scrutiny, and drama. So, I have to conclude, the Bush administration sees this as an opportunity to put a democracy in the Middle East. If it works, it will make the U.S. be seen in a better light and perhaps stop the U.S. hatred in the Middle East. I will agree the U.S. and, more importantly, Christianity have caused the Middle East not to like the West. But, the Middle East certainly has done its part to perpetuate that hatred, probably for financial gain just like the far right demonizes gays, liberals, etc., to fill the coffers here in America.

Finally, the U.S. may have a tarnished image to some in the world, but that has not effected our status with the world in many significant areas. For example, there have been no significant embargos on U.S. goods. In fact, quite the contrary has occured. I also wonder if the majority of the people who now hate America did not do so already prior to Iraq conflict.

Food for thought!

[Rob67]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
It wasn't "some" - It was the world through their UN representatives for 11 years as well as the last U.S. administration, which used essentially the same intelligence as the current administration. That France, Russia, and Germany acted on financial reasons to block the war (they wanted to keep their contracts and loans with Iraq intact) was significant and, IMO, caused more bloodshed.

I also disagree and think Bush's reasons were mostly humanitarian for both the Iraqi people and the U.S. citizens. Otherwise why go to such an extreme. One could argue it was to to give Halliburton and Bechtel money. But, certainly money and alot of it could have been given to them via defense contracts, etc., without all of the bloodshed, scrutiny, and drama. So, I have to conclude, the Bush administration sees this as an opportunity to put a democracy in the Middle East. If it works, it will make the U.S. be seen in a better light and perhaps stop the U.S. hatred in the Middle East. I will agree the U.S. and, more importantly, Christianity have caused the Middle East not to like the West. But, the Middle East certainly has done its part to perpetuate that hatred, probably for financial gain just like the far right demonizes gays, liberals, etc., to fill the coffers here in America.

Finally, the U.S. may have a tarnished image to some in the world, but that has not effected our status with the world in many significant areas. For example, there have been no significant embargos on U.S. goods. In fact, quite the contrary has occured. I also wonder if the majority of the people who now hate America did not do so already prior to Iraq conflict.

Food for thought!

Well said...

Rob

[dissention]

Originally posted by Rob67
But what are you implying by saying the US should stop and reflect on what it has done?

Are you insinuating that we are at fault for making Islamic Fundamentalists angry and causing them to kill innocent people?

Certainly not. I must be guilty of using the wrong wording.

What I meant was that I had hoped that our country would stop and reflect on some of its actions and be more sensitive and understanding of other people. Maybe become more educated on people of other countries, realize how their actions towards people affect that person, and/or not be so ignorant towards the world in general. Instead, there was a week of prayers and talk about how devastating it was, then it turned into a fad where everyone had to have an American flag on their car and everyone was talking about killing all of the "towelheads" and making them suffer. I was appalled at this and, in my eyes, no matter how shook up a person is, they shouldn't be saying stuff like that. It turned into this big revenge-type thing and no one stopped to look at how they were acting or how their country conducted itself in foreign affairs. No one stopped to realize that while the majority of the world prayed for us, a good deal of it still looked down on us. No one educated themselves about why something like the attack happened or why the world had such views about us.

That's what I meant and hopefully it wasn't offensive.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
Certainly not. I must be guilty of using the wrong wording.

What I meant was that I had hoped that our country would stop and reflect on some of its actions and be more sensitive and understanding of other people. Maybe become more educated on people of other countries, realize how their actions towards people affect that person, and/or not be so ignorant towards the world in general. Instead, there was a week of prayers and talk about how devastating it was, then it turned into a fad where everyone had to have an American flag on their car and everyone was talking about killing all of the "towelheads" and making them suffer. I was appalled at this and, in my eyes, no matter how shook up a person is, they shouldn't be saying stuff like that. It turned into this big revenge-type thing and no one stopped to look at how they were acting or how their country conducted itself in foreign affairs. No one stopped to realize that while the majority of the world prayed for us, a good deal of it still looked down on us. No one educated themselves about why something like the attack happened or why the world had such views about us.

That's what I meant and hopefully it wasn't offensive.

You are absolutely right in the fact that the flag waving became a bit silly. And, of course, the "towelhead" jokes and rants were thrown out there by some of the unenlightened.

But, I don't really believe that there is a major ignorance by us towards other people. At least not more then any other country has for us.
Just take a look at the countries where terrorism is rampant. Usually these are poorer countries which have strong dictatorships that control all facets of the economy and media. These regimes are extremely rich (hell, with all the oil in the region, these nations should be the most prosperous on earth!) but the people are kept in check by misinformation ("The evil West is the root of all your problems"). These people live in poverty conditions and are raised to think that their economic plight and culture is the result of US and other western policies. And this is the only information they are allowed to recieve via government controlled media. All the while, their rulers live in huge palaces and live extravagant lives.

You hear this from people who have defected from some of these nations. I knew a kid in college who's family defected from Iran. He said coming here was like a revelation. He couldn't believe that you could publically disagree with the government in this country. Anti-Americanism and anti-West rhetoric is preached from birth. He said those governments want the people to hate the west. I mean, we send billions of dollars in aid to these countries and for what? To pay for new presidential palaces?

Regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with US foriegn policy, there are people in the world who want to kill you simply because you are American. Perhaps they are the ones who need to learn about other cultures and not be so ignorant.

My two cents, anyway...

Take it easy,

Rob

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Like I said, it changes nothing. It's a silly notion to think that this mess will cease just because Saddam was found in a hole. If it does change anyhting, though, it's Bush's approval rating. Why? Because of ignorance.

Following my own advice, I took this quote from the other thread about SH getting caught.

Of course this changes things and has the potential to chage things in a significant manner if SH was a significant figure giving orders to the resistance in Iraq.

I think it is safe to assume that on some level the capture of the former leader of Iraq will demoralize some if not a lot of resistance fighters who were fighting to put SH back in power (we cannot be sure all resistance is trying for this goal). Moreover, this is a huge win for the Bush Admin. because they now have this jerk in custody as opposed to running around loose somewhere. The formerly significant and often used argument of "you could not even capture him" is no longer on the table. So, of course Bush's approval rating will go up, it should. But, like everyone else, this is just my opinion.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Of course this changes things and has the potential to chage things in a significant manner if SH was a significant figure giving orders to the resistance in Iraq.

But, that's my point. I don't think a scruffy little man in a dug-out was in any position to give orders and I don't believe he was giving the orders.

[strandinthewind]

If that is true, which it very well maybe, then we are in trouble.

[dissention]

You know what's funny?

This entire thread has been dominated by only four posters: you, me, Goldie, and Rob.

You know what's even funnier?

The only ones who seem to agree are Goldie and I, and you and Rob.

This thread should be kept for posterity.

[Rob67]

Originally posted by dissention
You know what's funny?

This entire thread has been dominated by only four posters: you, me, Goldie, and Rob.

You know what's even funnier?

The only ones who seem to agree are Goldie and I, and you and Rob.

This thread should be kept for posterity.

ANd what an enjoyable thread it has been!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
But, that's my point. I don't think a scruffy little man in a dug-out was in any position to give orders and I don't believe he was giving the orders.

Agreed. I don't think this is where the suicide bombers are coming from. At the same time Osama Bin Hussein was being captured, 17 people were killed in a car bombing of an Iraqi police station. This was not the type of thing we were seeing in Iraq before the war.