Topic awaiting preservation: A people deserves its leader... (Page 2 of 2)

I think this article supports DLs statements fairly well Wonder-Working Power.

Obviously, Mr. Bush is very religious, even willing to go on record with

quote:

---

His 1993 pronouncement to an Austin-American Statesman reporter that non-believers will go to hell infuriated a lot of non-believers

--AlterNet

---

In fact, I find the article to be very intriguing on a number of religious issues...and I'm curious now, as to what Bugs thinks of the Article, and what communion he considers that he belongs to.

quote:

---

...bugimus is using the evils of the regime to it's own people as a legal justification for invasion...

---

DL, I never said I thought what we did was "legal". I think it we did the right thing but from everything I can see about the UN and international law, what we did was clearly illegal. I'm really curious now to know your views on this more clearly because if you fall somewhere between me and Jestah and we are both *very* wrong as you say, then are you saying your position is just right? If so, I would really like to consider it and see how it compares to other opinions here.

X, interacting with everyone here is a great way to test out ideas and I like to think I will learn something from it all. I guess it does get a bit tiring sometimes and I do get a little discouraged but then I realize how stupid and self-centered that sentiment is and jump right back in. I have come to trust most of the people here to not take my words too personally and I trust them to offer me the same courtesy so we can focus on the issues rather than engaging in flame wars. If I wanted that I would go to any number of other discussion boards where that is the norm.

Jestah, you asked

quote:

---

...how can we possibly believe a President who lied about a country containing chemical and biological weapons?

---

Let's give this search for WMD and indefinite amount of time like so many wanted to give the UN inspectors and then you can talk about lying. The indefinite amount of time argued for the inspectors really bothered me but seriously, you must give the US at least 5 months time (the time afforded Blix and Co) before you assume there are no WMD to be found. I promise that if no evidence turns up, then I'll apologize to you. Fair deal?

The reason it seems you are ignoring things is this. I have already answered your question about "why Iraq". In my last post, I reiterated that I answered it and I even expanded on it and took a good deal of time to do it respectfully. What more do you want me to tell you other than my answer? If you disagree with it, perhaps you just need to do so and move on. If you can explain to me why my answer is lacking then please do so but at least acknowledge to me that you have read and understood what I said so I don't think I'm wasting my typing.

Maybe it really comes down to this, to you Iraq is very low on your threat list and it is higher on mine. If you want to know the reasons it is higher on mine, review my answers above.

The list of countries I outlined for you show you that I am not single-sighted on this issue. I see lots of problems and there is no perfect schedule to deal with them. We have limited resources and limited resolve and we have to do what we can with what we have when it has the best chance of success. Sometimes we don't take on the harder problems simply because we can't do it. I know this may come as a shock, but we are not all powerful. We are the strongest but we can't even prevent attacks on our own cities so that should demonstrate that we can only do so much. We have to choose our battles carefully.

mobrul,

quote:

---

One of them has even called for the GENOCIDE of the Palestinians.

---

Please provide more information and a name. The Palestinian/Israeli issue is a tough one to be sure and I have read some of your thoughts on that one and once again we see things very differently. I'm sure it deserves its own thread but at the very least you are going to have to be more speicific when you throw around words like genocide... especially when you leave out any mention of all the rhetoric about pushing the Zionist state into the sea which is repeated so often by some it is virtually ignored.

WS, I'm going to get to your stuff as soon as I can. I haven't read the article yet but am looking forward to it.

A fair deal?

Bugimus, we invaded a country and killed thousands of their citizens on the belief that President Bush HAD evidence of WMD in Iraq. Regardless of your reasons, this was the reason of our government. We had photographic evidence, taken from satellites, of these labs and storage areas. Both you and I argued many times on the merits of those claims. After all, the United Nations, with a decade of inspectors being there, weren't able to uncover any WMD but the Bush Administration,from the other side of the world, found them in a matter of months. Not only did they uncover this evidence but they REFUSED share it with the rest of the world because it was too secret. Now you're suggesting we plum lost the evidence and need several years of searching to find these weapons? Whatever you say buckeroo. Let's face it, twenty years from now you'll be arguing with me on this very forum that the reason former President Bush still hasn't shown us any of this evidence is "national security" & you still feel convinved that he has this evidence and hasn't lied to the American people,

Fair deal? After an invasion based on the sole reason of our evidence you're asking for an "indefinite amount of time" to find this evidence. Yea that sounds like a real fair deal Bugimus. It really seems to coincide with Republican beliefs nicely, shoot first and find some evidence later.

My questions regarding "why Iraq" are two different questions. One inquired why we should invade Iraq, while the other inquired why we should invade Iraq other various other countries. You've only now answered my question as to why we should invade Iraq over other nations. While I understand the need to pick and choose your battles, maybe we could try some better judgement. Maybe its me but when we need about half a year to find a weapon in a country, we might be wasting our time. Yea, we won a real big battle. Sure, we can't actually find any of their weapons, but it's good to know that rather then confronting a nation who is stockpiling nuclear weapons or promoting terrorism, we've taken out the dominating force that is Iraq.

With the strong resistence they showed, who knows what would have happened if they got the jump on us!

Jestah

[This message has been edited by Jestah (edited 04-24-2003).]

How long were you willing to give the UN inspectors to do their job? Give me a specific time period. It is fair for you to give the same amount of time to find them now. If you can't do that, then wouldn't that just show you to be more concerned with your political agenda rather than real evidence?

That being said, I will admit to you that I had hoped they knew exactly where some of these sites were located and could go right to them and get them. I will admit I am disappointed this was not the case and it does give me some pause.

On the other hand, I can see how we would have targeted the most obvious sites if they were thought to be capable of launching attacks against our troops. If this was the case then we will only know about it once the teams get in there with the proper equipment to detect the substances.

We are also getting reports from Iraqi scientists who were ordered to destroy the stuff they were working on before the UN inspectors arrived which just further proves how futile that effort was and shows why some of the stuff may be hidden better than we thought.


I'm glad to know you read my answer as to why I think we needed to invade Iraq. Now you say your question really was two questions. Ok, but didn't I also anticipate your second question and list many of the countries where there are serious problems? I also told you quite directly that not every country requires military action to effect a change.

Jestah, you are a political science major, please tell me you are able to think on more levels than just "attack or not attack". We should only go to war when necessary and when the diplomatic options have been exhausted. We more than exhausted them in the Iraq situation but we haven't in all the others. There may come a time when we have but we have to try everything short of war first. I'm sure we can agree on that.

So, I've held back on asking too many questions for a little while now in order to allow more to be asked of my position. I've been working very hard to formulate why I hold the positions I do. But I really want to know from you, Jestah, how you would handle the list of countries I gave above. Please tell me the most effective way to proceed. Please be specific and please be realistic. In other words, I do NOT want to hear how we should all just be able to get along. I want to know how you would advise a US administration of your choosing on how to deal with the nations I mentioned.

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-24-2003).]

Bugimus, considering we have photographic evidence of the location of these WMD, the area relatively secured, all the technology in the world - how does 15 minutes sound? Hell, if I had satellite pictures showing that I left my car keys on my dinning room table, it would take me however long it took me to get into the room to find them. So is my allocation of 15 minutes reasonable? UN Weapons Inspectors had a slight disadvantage - the Bush Administration wasn't willing to share its insight with them.

I need to run to the library though, I'll be back about midnight to finish my post.

Jestah

Bugimus - would I call my position 'just right'? Nope. At this point the best I can label my position is 'really confused'. Fair enough?

And I also made the assumption that you were saying we were legally justified as well as morally. My mistake.

I guess my big issue is, before we can presume to be the morality police in the international community, we better get our act together ourselves.

While we may not be as blatant and overt with our criminal and immoral actions, we have too much dirt on our hands to be invading other countries based on their internal actions.

DL, very fair.

I generally agree with you about not attacking nations based on their internal affairs. That is why in my list of reasons to go after Iraq, I included the part about attacking Iran and Kuwait. I personally have no doubts that had he never been challenged, he would have made a move to take over much of the region. Also notice that I don't believe that is called for in most cases. Iraq fought every single attempt at a diplomatic solution, anyone who knew how Hussein viewed the world could not be surprised by that.

About not doing anything until we get our act together? I think you know me well enough now to know I would most certainly prefer that we get our act together. But I just can't believe we ever will do so sufficiently before we need to act elsewhere. Can we really afford not to act if that would mean a far worse outcome? I'm personally not prepared to accept that without more convincing.

Jestah, I think you expecting them to pop up instantaneously is not reasonable and I am eagerly awaiting the completion of your post.

Bugs, his name is Richard Perle.
Currently he is holding a position as chairman of the Defense Policy Board and he held a high post (assistant secretary of defense for international security policy, if my memory is correct) in the Reagan administration. In 1996 he wrote (with a handful of others) a paper called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" advising then incoming Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu how to deal with his new job. It addressed Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and the Palestinians.

As for the Palestinians, it said Israel needed to stop negotiation with the Palestinians, stop trying to work out a peace, give up on the Oslo accords, and basically annex the West Bank and Gaza strip. He argues Israel is strong enough to take over, so stop negotiating. He advocates creating new 'facts on the ground' (read: increase settlement areas into Palestinian controlled areas, killing and destroying anything in their way).
Now, if Israel (the self-proclaimed Jewish state) annexes the West Bank and Gaza Strip, then the Palestinians (who have virtually zero rights in a state strictly for Jews) would either be killed off, starve or leave.
That's 'ethnic cleansing' or genocide.
Perle doesn't ever call it that...but that's the likely outcome.

Another interesting point -- it was in that same paper (in 1996) that Perle advocated war on Iraq and Syria. This has nothing at all to do with WMD, it has nothing at all to do with democracy or liberty; it has to do with power and who is going to control the world and its resources. Do you really want our country to take over the world? Do you want 'pax Americana'?

I don't trust this guy and I don't trust his friends. I want to make the US a great leader in the world -- a promoter of human rights, an advocate of fair trade, a shining light of inspiration.
These guys, these guys in whom you place your trust, want to turn the US not into a great leader, but the all-powerful madman -- a destroyer of human rights, a ruthless and extorting thug, a great fire to be feared.

I'm not disagreeing here but, of all the countries who have the ability to take over the world(and there aren't that many really, if any) I'd much rather see the US do it then any other country. Life in America isn't bad. If we were to be imperialistic and 'impose' our lifestyle on others... for most it would be an improvement. Other countries probably wouldn't like it but it would probably still be an improvement for them.

GrythusDraconis
"I'm sick of hearing that beauty is only skin-deep. That's deep enough. Who wants an adorable pancreas?" - Unknown

[This message has been edited by GrythusDraconis (edited 04-25-2003).]

But it wouldn't last, GD...and afterwards, we would be hated...like never before. America would probably be taken apart, after the 'Empire' fell...the first Global Empire...I imagine the hate would be enormous.

I just can't reconcile this...sorry. It goes against everything, that we supposedly stand for. We are a land, of people that came here to get away from repression and tyrancy (Native Americans excluded, of course...and many of the African Americans, as well).

If we were to become a part of a world government (like the UN, for example), that would be not only fine by me, but justified, IMHO. Seeing that we are having problems even with that (esp. currently)...I shudder to think what could be done in 'Americas good name' as a Global Ruler.

I echo Mobruls post, in this.

I know of many white middle class and intelectual British people that are becoming strongly anti-American. They are starting to despise American arrogance and the fact that they think their opinion and perspective is the only valid one. That they have taken it upon themselves to become the tyrannical, hypocritical bully of the world. Ideas of megalomania and enforced 'New World Order' syndrome gets them pretty heated and nervously agitated. I say this because it is not only those in distant parts of the world you choose to oppress that are angry but those that you may consider your allies that are observing you closely and are getting seriously pissed off. You claim Bush and his ilk does this in your name and does that in your name and that next time you will vote this and that. But there people wonder how you let such a man get in power in the first place and how you all as a people have tolerated all this and sat back politely and let it all happen in the name of democracy. For that you ALL become responsible and - share blame. The most you do is cautiously voice your opinions in carefully worded essays, so safe and non committal. You will all be held personally responsible for you apathy, detachment and indifference, and that they don't accept pathetic excuses fo the population of America allowing and handful of individuals you run amock in the world.

If you wonder if you will be hated..the answer is yes... it is already happening. It is common knowledge that America does not see the rest of the world as as it extended family, as it's God created brothers and sisters. But just as potentially threatening enemies. That soounds like some 'national insecurity' neurosis prompted by a massive and all pervading and inbuilt sense of guilt in the American psyche. Americans only value other Amercans (on the surface that is for in the five years I spent in the States I saw just the opposite. but while it's convenient to pretend that they care they will)

Democracy = goverment by the people for the people. You chose, or you allowed the choice. You are all party to the crimes, lies and guilt. You will have to sleep in the bed you are making or rather are allowing to be made for you...or so it is claimed. People round the world are just not buying it anymore.


...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-27-2003).]

Oh...so. Well, the British will first have to point the finger at themselves, because of Mr. Blair. Funny, I didn't see the British storming their halls of government, demanding the immediate halt to the participation of the UK...

Now, many (and I do mean many) protested, as is their right in a democracy against it, all over the world...in Britian, and in America, as well.

And it is our right, to vote according to our beliefs. And yes, you may hold all Americans accountable...but then, we can also hold all British accountable, accordingly...what, exactly, does that solve? Personally, I prefer to solve the matter at the polls...that's what a democracy is, IMHO. Should Mr. Bush win the Presidency again...well, then the majority of Americans have spoken...I may not like it...but I have to accept it as long as he is duly elected! I recall only one real event, in American history, where this was not so...the Civil War. It was the bloodiest conflict in American History.

Now, should Mr. Bush attempt to hold office, without being duly elected (i.e. no elections, or declare some sort of martial law, whatever)...that is another matter, entirely. I don't think he is stupid enough to do it, though...we will see. In such a case, I would be one of the first, to take up arms. I suspect, I would be one from many. 'Defend America, from all enemies, foreign and domestic'. I took this oath, and I was serious then, and I am serious about it now.

'Cast the first stone...' in other words, don't preach, unless the pulpet is clean.

Now, if someone from...say France were to say something like you did...that would be a bit different, right?

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 04-26-2003).]

Yes, don't you share all the blame for this war being British, X? Aren't you, in fact, condemning yourself as you condemn us? Besides, I think you have blinded yourself to certain realities in this world.

Why have I never heard you complain about the abuses of far worse countries than Britain or the US? Have you ever heard of the black slave trade in Sudan? What about the millions and I mean millions of people slaughtered at the foot of communism? What about Cuba?

You don't have to drag out the litany of American abuses because we are all quite aware of them around here and unlike many of our fellow citizens, we don't deny them. But please show me that you are not solely animated by your hatred for your own society by expressing your outrage about the other atrocities that happen in this world.

I just want to know you are aware of them. Because if your emotions only become enraged at the US and Britain's actions while ignoring all the rest, then that would make you a hypocrite.

No Bugs I am not British... and yes they get a kick in the ass too. .but the topic here is Amerca...

..and I find you make an excuse for everything, never taking responsibilty, evasion and shifting the focus is your main defense...

...xpi...

"nuff said"

You live in the UK, right? I assumed you were British, sorry. What is your citizenship and nationality?

[edit] And please... if you're going to cast the stone, make sure you're not in the proverbial glass house. I have answered and am in the process of answering every question you have asked of me. [/edit]

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-26-2003).]

X - you toss your accusations and personal insults around a little too freely...especially for a guy who very rarely offers any backing for the sometimes wild claims you make, and who is very sparse with actual information.

I have never seen bugimus do anything but give a straight answer to any question you (or anyone else) has ever asked.

Perhaps you don't like his answers....but that's a different story altogether.

quote:

---

Jestah, I think you expecting them to pop up instantaneously is not reasonable and I am eagerly awaiting the completion of your post.

---

Not reasonable? Bugs, both you and I have argued several times whether or not President Bush has evidence of WMD. President Bush has stated that he has satellite evidence of where these WMD are being kept, and you've said every time now that you believe him. Why are you alotting so much time? Our satillite pictures are essentially maps. Are you able to read a map? Someone in the military HAS to be.

My political agenda means absolutely nothing in this case. I've never claimed to know where WMD were, Bush did that. He based a war on this. Now its time to deliver. Surely you can see that his unwillingness to provide this evidence is a problem.

I'm not really sure who's the one thinking along the lines of "attack or not attack." I'm thinking along the lines of co-exist and prosper, a direction the Bush administration is unwilling to consider. We should go to war only when its absolutely necessary and I honestly don't believe you really think this situation was absolutely necessary. Theres absolutely no reason to believe the Iraqi government planned on attacking us or selling its supposed WMD to terrorist organizations.

How would I handle things? Personally, I'd cut off all ties to Isreal. I'd try and persuade the United Nations to invest in even more weapons inspectors in Iraq. I'd then negotiate with South Korea. Thats about it.

Jestah

You talk about accepting it if Bush is 'duly elected'... well that sounds kinda fair...in theory.. so tell me this.. if the Iraqi people 'duly elect' to have an Islamic government, why will that NOT be accepted. America has already said that it will not allow such a thing!! So what does that tell me... one rule of democracy for you and and another for them? It seems as though the Iraqis can have any government the choose as long as America approves ... and they have already placed their puppets in the running. Surely that sucks. Don't even try to tell me that this is right. Some one please give me an answer for this.

Listen everyone I am not British, and I don't claim to defend the British system, (that is a another whole barrel of worms and I have reams to say about them), I have no nationalistic tendencies whatsoever, but the subject here is what the US is doing in this world. Isn't it? What good is it to say 'they are also to blame', and 'what about them?' Why can't someone admit that the US is just completely unjustified in what it is doing? and is going way over the top?

D-L: What wild claims are you refering too? I can certainly back up every thing I say but it will certainly not be politically correct or even polite. This is not the time, place or forum for that.

(for your curiosity Bugs my mother is German, my father Jamaican and I was born in another country still, spent my childhood in yet another, and have lived in many others...last count spent time in about 18 different countries. I'm a bit of a globalist. So without giving you my fingerprints and a DNA sample what does that make me in your opinion?)

I should also say that I did throw insults at any one individual, You see that my posts are rarely directed to any one in particular. I am reacting to ideas and actions.. not you people. Please accept my apologies if it seems that way, I'm sorry to all if that's how it came across. I respect you all and appreciate the chance to exchange with such an interesting group of individuals. I don't have the space to put every detail and source of why I think the way I do and perhaps this is not even the right place to do such a thing as the subject is just too dam big. Maybe I should just shut up altogether...

ps. Don't be so fragile.

...xpi...

[This message has been edited by Xpirex (edited 04-27-2003).]

Come on, X, what is your citizenship and nationality? I'm getting a little tired of you telling me I'm evasive when you still haven't told me where you're from or where those prophecies you keep mentioning come.

[edit] I read your reply before you added the edit [/edit]

So what country were you born in?

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-27-2003).]

No, don't shut up. Just have a conversation with us. It's no big deal.

Well, it does look like the British are punishing Mr. Blair for Iraq...wooohooooo! Tories fail council seats test. Just got to love that...wonder how elections in the US will do next year...

Imagine that Mr. Bush wins, and old ally Britain does an aboutface...do you think they'll get labeled as traitors and backstabbers? But of course they would...that's the Bush way...