Guess who ---

[Frank]

"This is a time to send Saddam Hussein as clear a message as we know how to send that we will not tolerate the broken promises and the tremendous acceleration of development of weapons that we've seen time and time again in Iraq."

Tom Daschle, right after the bombing on the eve of Clinton's impeachment.


"Month after month, we have given Iraq chance after chance to move from confrontation to cooperation, and we have explored and exhausted every diplomatic action. We will see now whether force can persuade Iraq's misguided leaders to reverse course and to accept at long last the need to abide by the rule of law and the will of the world."


Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, same day as Daschle.


Anyone heard from them lately? Even though we haven't gone to war yet?

 

[vraiblonde]

Oooh! Oooh! I have!

Daschle at a January 2003 press conference:
"I don't think the administration has presented adequate, convincing evidence to say that [Iraq] can produce weapons to share with terrorist."

Madeleine Albright responding to Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech:
"The world now thinks the U.S. has lost its mind."

 

[Penn]

Ok, so what's their excuse?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Oooh! Oooh! I have!

Daschle at a January 2003 press conference:
"I don't think the administration has presented adequate, convincing evidence to say that [Iraq] can produce weapons to share with terrorist."

Madeleine Albright responding to Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech:
"The world now thinks the U.S. has lost its mind."

Could it simply be that the person occuping the White House is not a Liberal?

Are these people that shallow minded and bitter, that they won't speak on his behalf, support him, even though Pres. Bush is doing the job that Clinton had no stomach for?

Who need polititians like these?

 

[demsformd]

Well, guess what this is politics. I do not recall President Bush advocating the removal of Hussein from power during the campaign and in fact he opposed nation-building, which is exactly what we are going to do in Iraq. The conservatives opposed Serbia, we supported it while Clinton was in office. Now that has switched. I support a war and I support our president and I think that the liberals of this nation should as well and see that they are being far too political with this. We can't just oppose war just for the sake of opposing President Bush. But you have to understand that conservatives did the same thing with Clinton's actions in office. They opposed war then as well just for the sake of opposing Clinton.

In closing, may God bless our troops and our President as he leads us into battle.

 

[Penn]

Quintessential thinking...

Originally posted by demsformd
Well, guess what this is politics.
We can't just oppose war just for the sake of opposing President Bush.

But you have to understand that conservatives did the same thing with Clinton's actions in office. They opposed war then as well just for the sake of opposing Clinton.

In closing, may God bless our troops and our President as he leads us into battle.

Sorry Dems, Clinton never had the stomach for it, like I said earlier. He made no bones about how he and Hillary loathed the military.

Sending troops in, or sending missiles in to do a job was "convenient" for him at certain "uncomfortable times" in his presidency.

Pretty much everyone realized that.

But even if the arguement held any water, does that advocate
the idea of "tit for tat" is acceptable?

I didn't hear any great outcry from the anti-war types when we went in and bombed Bosnia.

 

[Frank]

Re: Quintessential thinking...

Originally posted by penncam

I didn't hear any great outcry from the anti-war types when we went in and bombed Bosnia.

And it's the "anti-war" thing that is important - Hollywood trots out their celebs, asking people to harass the White House, tie up their phones, web site - make their voice known - but said NOTHING about the Balkans. NO outcry when the Chinese embassy got bombed. *Nothing* when innocents were getting blown to smithereens.

It's SO clear what all of this REALLY is -

A very thinly veiled anti-BUSH effort - and that is why I give it zero credibility. The venom is against Republicans, not war. We haven't even dropped a bomb yet, and they're getting nasty. Why didn't they say something when people ACTUALLY *did* die?

 

[MGKrebs]

Anti-Bush? It's not my fault he's an idiot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/25/opinion/25KRIS.html

"Eisenhower, who led the European Allies to victory in World War II and was president from 1953 to 1961, faced a crisis in Egypt similar to today's and effectively chose containment rather than invasion"

"President Ronald Reagan chose to contain Libya rather than invade it"

"Nasser had the potential to upset the globe in a way that Saddam doesn't. "

"When Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal in 1956, the West was sure that the canal would fall apart and disrupt global trade. Cairo Radio once boasted: "Millions of Arabs are . . . preparing to blow up all of America's interests, all of America's installations, and your entire existence, America."

"Eisenhower warned Britain in 1956 that its insistence on ousting Nasser was leading to sweeping anti-British sentiment, and that while "initial military successes might be easy . . . the eventual price might become far too heavy."

Also, this from an apparently conservative source:

http://hudmark.com/weh/000068.html#000068

"containment has traditionally been America's greatest source of isolating and dealing with problems. It can be argued somewhat persuasively that this quasi-disinvolvement is a sort of American neo-isolationism, and in any respect contributed to the problems with which we are forced to deal today, but I think it does have some practical uses -- North Korea, for example, is a perfect example of why containment is the preferred choice in many situations over direct or indirect action against a foe. "

"It is my opinion that while a military invasion of Iraq is justifiable under international law and under common moral decency, it should have been done some months ago, and at present constitutes an asymmetric risk to the United States and coalition forces in the region, not to mention Israel, whose involvement in the war would be disastrous to what little stability is left in the region."

 

[Heretic]

Lybia has pretty much behaved since we bombed them once....Saddam hasn't.

Lybia never agreed to a truce and then went back on the agreements.

Bosnia posed no threat to the US, Europe was perfectly capable of taking care of their own house...how come we had to spend our money, put our troops at risk? It pisses me off to no end when the UN decides to do some peacekeeping the US and Great Britian is really who does all the peacekeeping with an occasional soldier from some militarly irrevelant country.

A few weeks ago Clinton said that he was ready to invade N. Korea....if he had what would have been the excuse there, Its just sex wouldnt work there.

 

[Frank]

Thanks MGKrebs - for *proving* my point.

Even if he *is* an idiot - and I don't believe he is - what is driving most of the "anti-war" rhetoric is dislike for Bush. The BEST alternative offered is to keep at the inspections, which accomplish nothing, if Iraq doesn't want to cooperate.

Your articles contain a lot of interesting perspectives - one is, that containment really didn't work with Egypt, as far as Israel was concerned - did it? It took a couple of nasty wars where the Arabs got their asses kicked. Cairo Radio threatened the US? So diplomacy has *really* worked in the last fifty years.

At this point, much of Europe - the part that isn't France or Germany - is fairly convinced that if sanctions won't work, if inspections won't work, if diplomatic pressure won't work - what's left?

You know, I used to live near a crazy guy who had stolen weapons from military bases - he decorated his homes with stolen ordnance - some of them - HUGE. Magazines of bullets used as hall rugs. Most of them - NOT duds. And he was a bit crazy - he'd been known to steal police cars, shoot at stuff in his back yard, point machine guns (loaded) at friends, and he got drunk a lot.

Now, had I told the cops about this guy, and they came back to me saying, "sorry, we asked him if he had that stuff, and he said he didn't" or "he said he just doesn't know where it is", I'd be *furious*. And that is what we are expected to do with the UN. The inspections only *work*, if he says, sure, come on in, take them, I'm destroying them as we speak - come on out back, I'll show you. THAT is their job. They are only there to verify that he is obeying the resolution. If he refuses to cooperate - I think it would be their job to go in and force the issue.

ANYWAY - back on topic - I think the proof is pretty obvious by the names cast at Bush, and the kind of language used at HIM, specifically - without even ANYTHING better as an alternative than - just send more inspectors, which is like sending more cops to a hostage standoff. It's all anti-Bush, and calling him an idiot just proves my point.

 

[Penn]

Originally posted by Heretic
.

Europe was perfectly capable of taking care of their own house...how come we had to spend our money, put our troops at risk?

It pisses me off to no end when the UN decides to do some peacekeeping the US and Great Britain is really who does all the peacekeeping with an occasional soldier from some militarly irrevelant country.

A few weeks ago Clinton said that he was ready to invade N. Korea....if he had what would have been the excuse there, Its just sex wouldnt work there.

Everything makes total sense here.
Maybe the answer here is a paradox of some sort: The UN members know that the US of A has the most military might, the most advanced weaponry, right?
"So we will just sit here with our fingers up our @$&es, and let the US military do the dirty work for us!"

Yet if the US identifies a threat, and our intelligence intercept cell phone dialogues, shows chemical/biological sites, illegal missile technology, and we take that to the UN for action, WELLLLL - wait a minute here - we have to vote on this; we need to have dialogue between our member states.

"Psst: Hey Frenchy: what should we do about this ? (Yeah, I KNOW you have that multi-billion dollar oil deal with them), OH!, Ok, we'll stall for six months..........by that time world opinion...."

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by Frank
Thanks MGKrebs - for *proving* my point.

Even if he *is* an idiot - and I don't believe he is - what is driving most of the "anti-war" rhetoric is dislike for Bush. The BEST alternative offered is to keep at the inspections, which accomplish nothing, if Iraq doesn't want to cooperate.

Your articles contain a lot of interesting perspectives - one is, that containment really didn't work with Egypt, as far as Israel was concerned - did it? It took a couple of nasty wars where the Arabs got their asses kicked. Cairo Radio threatened the US? So diplomacy has *really* worked in the last fifty years.

ANYWAY - back on topic - I think the proof is pretty obvious by the names cast at Bush, and the kind of language used at HIM, specifically - without even ANYTHING better as an alternative than - just send more inspectors, which is like sending more cops to a hostage standoff. It's all anti-Bush, and calling him an idiot just proves my point.

I have to agree here with Frank...the anti-war movement is incredibly anti-Bush. Look at the people that oppose this war that fervently supported the Serbian War. The Serbs killed ethnic Albanians, the Iraqis are killing Kurds and other people of that nation unjustly. We need to remove Hussein from power and guess what, just standing back and hoping that that will happen will not lead to his overthrow. Look, the Arabs will not love us if we appease them. Whatever we do, some Islamic fundamentalist comes out against it. They will love us when we win, end of story.

 

[Penn]

Saudi Billionaire desires......

A Saudi Arabian billionaire with close ties to the royal family sent Secy of State Colin Powell a private letter endorsing the forcible removal of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from power.

You gotta like those vibes! With 3 billion dollars in assets, this fellow could probably finance the war if approached correctly!

http://search1.washtimes.com/cgi-bi...1&page_id=538&query=Saudi+Arabian+Billionaire

 

[MGKrebs]

Questions, Dems.

Originally posted by demsformd
...the anti-war movement is incredibly anti-Bush.

So what? Bush is essentially going it alone on this. He's bribing everybody in sight to back him up, and having trouble getting support anyway. Being against THIS war is very much the same as being against Bush ON THIS ISSUE. In England they protest Blair, but everywhere else in the world they protest Bush. This is seen as HIS WAR. Of COURSE the protests look anti-Bush.

Look at the people that oppose this war that fervently supported the Serbian War. The Serbs killed ethnic Albanians, the Iraqis are killing Kurds and other people of that nation unjustly.

Don't you see the difference? There is no "objective" measure of "badness". We have to depend on the world community to decide what is bad enough to trigger intervention. The world community (the UN) decided to intervene in Serbia. The world community has not yet decided to intervene FURTHER in Iraq. This is Bush's war. HE has decided to intervene.

We need to remove Hussein from power and guess what, just standing back and hoping that that will happen will not lead to his overthrow.

This is the most disappointing statement, Dems. You have bought the BS that there are only two choices; war or nothing. I am against the war, but I favor the inspection process, the no fly zones, embargos, trade sanctions, disarmament, and U2's. I guess that's "standing back and hoping".
Also, who is this "we" you refer to? The USA?

Look, the Arabs will not love us if we appease them. Whatever we do, some Islamic fundamentalist comes out against it. They will love us when we win, end of story.

That is so sad. Way too generalized. Arabs will love us when we win? What Arabs? Maybe Iraqis. Maybe. And again, who is "we"? And that will NOT be the "end of story". What about the Kurds? The Turks? The Syrians? The Iranians?

 

[Frank]

"I am against the war, but I favor the inspection process, the no fly zones, embargos, trade sanctions, disarmament, and U2's."

Interesting list - trade sanctions have done nothing to disarm him - enough nations are willing to BREAK them to give him what he wants, and the rest he's still been able to acquire - he's perfectly willing to let people starve and suffer. Embargos? Same thing, right? (Disarmament we can throw out - if he disarmed, the whole thing would be moot. Disarmament IS the point). U2's - yeah - begrudgingly they allowed these, which tells me they've got stuff well concealed.

No-fly zones? Get real. This is not a tool for disarmament. If it is, it's a lousy one, because he's been quite able to build all kinds of facilities right under their noses AND - he's shot at the planes almost on a weekly basis. I think if you're asking for compliance, the no-fly zones are a perfect example of him NOT cooperating.

That leaves the inspection process, and for the life of me, I still don't know why people somehow treat them as though they are cops with a search warrant. They're not . Or maybe the drill instructor with his white glove - they're not. They show up, and the Iraqis PROVE to them they are doing what they say they'll do. That's how it works. It's like me coming to your house and you proving to me you have destroyed your guns. I don't search your house - YOU prove it to ME. But - if you don't want to prove it, you can easily evade the process. Iraq is basically on the honor system.

Which means if they don't want to comply - more inspections won't make any difference. They could rebuild every damned thing and still "pass" the inspection process. It's only useful when a nation WANTS to show it has disarmed. Why can't people see this? Why do they think these guys are searching Iraq for weapons?

 

[Heretic]

So Krebs you basically saying that if Al Gore was doing the exact same thing you would support it.

And no this isnt Bushes war, it is Saddams war. Saddam is the master of his own destiny. If he follows the agreements that HE made there will be no war.

How can we get it through your thick head that Saddam is the one here that is controlling what will happen.

Are you saying if some madman with a nuke is threatening to blow up the world as long as the UN decides that they dont want to do anything we shouldnt do anything?

 

[Penn]

Oh yeah!! But the UN seems to be ignoring it.....

Originally posted by Frank
"I am against the war, but I favor the inspection process, the no fly zones, embargos, trade sanctions, disarmament, and U2's."


U2's - yeah - begrudgingly they allowed these, which tells me they've got stuff well concealed.

That leaves the inspection process, and for the life of me, I still don't know why people somehow treat them as though they are cops with a search warrant. They're not . Or maybe the drill instructor with his white glove - they're not. They show up, and the Iraqis PROVE to them they are doing what they say they'll do. That's how it works. It's like me coming to your house and you proving to me you have destroyed your guns. I don't search your house - YOU prove it to ME. But - if you don't want to prove it, you can easily evade the process. Iraq is basically on the honor system.

Which means if they don't want to comply - more inspections won't make any difference. They could rebuild every damned thing and still "pass" the inspection process. It's only useful when a nation WANTS to show it has disarmed. Why can't people see this? Why do they think these guys are searching Iraq for weapons?

These two items stick out for me like huge RED L.E.D. signs:
Saddam authorized the U-2 flights, after several weeks of haggling, but get THIS: He wants 48 hours of prior notification before the bird does it's overflight!! Gee, I wonder why?

Somehow, point #2 keeps eluding people. The UN Inspectors job is NOT to PLAY DETECTIVE!! It is on Iraq, READ: Saddam; THEY have to trot out the proof of dismantling or proof of destruction of
WMDs, etc., the ones they're not supposed to possess!

What is so hard for the anti-war activists/protestors to grasp??

I think that is what has Pres. Bush so fired up. The UN issued these Resolutions, but isn't willing to back them up.

 

[Larry Gude]

You must be joking...

Back to the wars, eh Krebs?

This is so illustrative of where you people come from ideologically; Romper room.

You cite an "apparently conservative source" to make your point for you that boils down to:

it should have been done some months ago, and at present constitutes an asymmetric risk

Ah yes. The "rush" to war will now be replaced with "war should have been done by now". I can just see the anti-Bush, err, excuse me, anti "war"protestors posters now;

"Bush too slow to war...we could have had peace by now if not for this idiot"

Do you all ever, really, consider what you say?

Dems4, I have to, grudgingly, give you some props for at least acting like you are thinking about this stuff in a deliberate manner. You actually sound like the Nation as a whole is more important to you than any dislike for one man.

 

[Penn]

But, But, Larry....

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Back to the wars, eh Krebs?

Ah yes. The "rush" to war will now be replaced with "war should have been done by now". I can just see the anti-Bush, err, excuse me, anti "war"protestors posters now;

"Bush too slow to war...we could have had peace by now if not for this idiot"

This is just natural progressive thinking of the Liberal Left, the order in which they see issues in the overall scheme of things.

What is ironic is, it is not that farfetched to accept this, from their point of view.

It follows because that is what was demanded by Daschel, and other cronies like Kennedy and Clinton after 9/11.

What didn't we know?, why didn't we know it?, and immediately they started pointing fingers at the Bush administration that it didn't protect us.

A few of them hinted, rather strongly, that Pres. Bush even knew about the attacks in advance, but allowed it to happen for political gain.

 

[Heretic]

I guess this is the approach that some peace protesters want us to take, I call it the Ned Flanders approach.

Bush: Gee Saddam we are never going to attack you again but we sure would like you to get rid of those nasty ole weapons of mass distruction, start treating your people better, and quit developing all banned weapons.

Saddam: Let me think a minute.....um no....wait let me think about it again....um no.

The threat of attack is about the only leverage that Saddam understands. It could be that Dubya has no intentions of invading, but just to use it as a threat if Saddam doesn't live up to conditions that he himself agreed to 12 years ago.

 

[MGKrebs]

OK

Here's the problem. I really want to respond, but there are about 10 posts that I need to respond to, and every time I post there will be 10 more. I just can't respond to everything like this. So...

Anybody up for a challenge? I challenge anyone here to a one-on-on thread about the war. The first post would be asking everyone else to refrain from posting so we can sorta control the debate. The second post would be the "first shot across the bow" so to speak. Heck, there could even be a parallel thread for other comments or "blow by blow" analysis.

Is this feasible? Or should I just concentrate on responding to one person and ignore the others?

Anybody got game?