Re: Bush is full of crap
 

"example: In '91, we did exactly what the UN approved by getting Saddam out of Kuwait. Now, most liberals and conservatives alike agree that we should have "finished the job" by going after Saddam while we had him on his heels.

Because we did exactly what was "approved" by the UN at the time, we're in the situation we're in now."

That was entirely our fault.

In the interest of getting the Global OK to stabilize the region with force, we dedided to lie and frame the issue as "we need to liberate Kuwait" rather than the the more truthful "we need to kick this madman's butt, stablize our oil supply, and ensure future stability by establishing military bases in the area"

If we were honest, we could have then kicked him out under the "stablize the area" mandate, but since we decided to be disingenuous, we essentially tied our own hands.

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

What sort of 'charge' is that? Spying on foreigners who are in your country? If that's a crime, every country is in trouble.

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

Today, the White House threatened Saddam with a war crimes trial in the event we go to war. How can one be considered a war criminal in a war that hasn't been fought yet?

Bush said that "the danger with Iraq is that he can strike in the neighborhood and the danger with Iraq is that he has got the willingness and capacity to train al-Qaida type
organizations and provide them with equipment to hurt Americans." I thought we had supposedly proven an association between al-Qaida and Iraq. Now its just enough that they have the willingness and capacity.

Isn't surrounding Iraq with 150,000 troops, threatening to use nuclear weapons and threatening the leader of the coutnry with a war crimes trial the best way to ensure that they will strike at Americans?

Iraq is "a piece of geography that's fairly significant," Gen. Eric K. Shinseki said at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. A piece of geography?

The conclusion one must draw is that the administration is looking at Iraq as a piece of geography indeed, one that is controlled by a person not amenable to our wishes. Saudi Arabia not only has the willingness and capacity but is a proven training ground for terrorists. But they are more amenable to our economic wishes.

Hundred of thousands of troops in post-war Iraq while the economy of the country goes to hell. Sad days for our country and the world.

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

Interestingly, the "vast majority of people on Earth" are rather uneducated and live under some form of totalitarian system. Sure, they have a right to their opinion, but mightn't their opinion be quite uninformed, not to say biased or wrong? And most member nations of the U.N. are totalitarian states too.

When the U.N. represents predominantly democratically-styled governments, then let's listen to the U.N. a bit more. As long as it represents so many garbage governments run by iron-fisted thugs who were never elected in the first place, I don't see why we should give too much credence to their opinions (other than taking them into account for diplomatic reasons).

Also, a great many fanatic Islamists--Islamofascists if you wish--oppose us on nearly everything. Does that mean they're right? Yet, interestingly, quite a few of the Gulf states will be in some way aiding our war effort;-)

Furthermore, the Iraqi people themselves long for regime change. The 4 million Iraqi exiles living in Europe were noticeably absent from the so-called "peace demonstrations" held recently--ever wonder why? They stayed away because they want regime change in Iraq--not a "peace" which will allow Saddam to continue his tyranny. Interestingly, they hold their own "peace demonstation" in Trafalgar Square every Saturday--calling for removal of Saddam. Where have the hordes of recent "peace demonstrators" been? Not at that regular rally.

If the majority of the rest of the world favors something, it doesn't necessarily mean they're right.

Now I understand you think we're wrong anyway on this issue, and you're just using a measure of world opinion to support your contention. But try and think of something--anything--in which your own opinion differs strongly from "the majority of the rest of the world" and maybe you'll see my point a bit better.

1.2 billion people believe in Islam. Does that make it "right"? How many people used to believe that the Sun revolved around the Earth? Did that make it right? Or did widespread belief in Medieval Western religions make them right or true?

What I'm saying here is that our ideals--the ideals on which our Constitution was founded--are highly evolved. "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"--means a LOT, really. Totalitarian systems or Islamofascist systems or other backwards political systems DON'T have an equal claim to validity--elected governments are simply SUPERIOR in every measure of which progress and liberty and human rights are parts.

So when the "rest of the world" advances enough to dispose of dictatorships and institutes separation of church and state and creates freely elected governments, I'll give their opinions more credence. I listen to their opinions now--but my view is that they're wrong on most things. And as for the Europeans who oppose war with Saddam, I think most of them are stuck in an appeasement-type mentality, or simply getting on a "feel-good" bandwagon, or, as in the case of France Russia and Germany, have heavy economic reasons for opposing the war with Iraq--and are simply ignoring the fact that without action, things will likely get worse.

John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, points out that Saddam cannot be "contained" because at issue is not just his military force, but also the development and spread of biological, chemical and possibly nuclear WMD--and such proliferation will inevitably end up in the hands of terrorists. He's right, and it is essential that we delay this proliferation and reduce its scope as much as possible. Regime change in Iraq will be one step in that direction, at least.

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

"What sort of 'charge' is that? Spying on foreigners who are in your country? If that's a crime, every country is in trouble. "

I was implying that inspections are worthless if he is spying on the inspectors and can sanitize a site before they arrive. Maybe he should be allowed to spy on them, but you'd have to agree that inspections are a pretty dumb idea if he is.

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

I agree completely. As an example, a number of years ago, after some closely spaced airline accidents, a poll was conducted with the question: Is the FAA doing enough about airline safety. Aside from the fact that the timing and the question are loaded; the response was predictable – about 75% said No! (I don’t remember exact numbers but this will do for illustration).

Now ask yourself, how many people have the knowledge or expertise to even answer such a question (I know I do not). The FAA is a large and cumbersome technical agency with thousands of people and a host of rules and regulations about airlines and airplanes. There are probably only a handful of people in all the US that would have enough knowledge to give a reasonable answer to such a question.

One of those persons is a friend of mine who is an avionics engineer (20 years) with Boeing and dealt extensively with the FAA. He used to do FAA flight systems certification for some of Boeing’s commercial aircraft. I remember how much he laughed about the survey results when I mentioned them to him.

I think this an excellent example of the limitations, bias, and unreliability of polls. Many can be dismissed out of hand.


-Zeno

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

"Today, the White House threatened Saddam with a war crimes trial in the event we go to war. How can one be considered a war criminal in a war that hasn't been fought yet?"

About the same as demonstrating against a war that hasn't been undertaken. Ok those who oppose war as an option are protesting. But Bush has said that Saddam does have an option so his statement can be construed as if you choose an option that leads to war then if you commit war crimes.

BTW I would argue that basically a war has started. We're already attacking Iraqi targets and part of northern Iraq is being occupied by anti Saddam forces. We've got a lot military resources committed to the region and more on the way. Many are positioned on Iraq's border and many military aircraft are within striking distance.

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

Your statement under(b) is false! In order to be a scientifically accurate measure of opinion a poll must be done on a random sample of people. Get your facts in order. Also, see my reply to Glenn.


-Zeno

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

"since we decided to be disingenuous, we essentially tied our own hands."

--Exactly. But then, by being disingenuous, we did get the poll numbers we wanted, and it was an extremely popular operation. Oh well, live and learn (maybe).

Re: Bush is full of crap
 

"About the same as demonstrating against a war that hasn't been undertaken."

Not to my way of thinking, Tom. We have been threatening war for many months now, we have massed troops around Iraq. War is imminent.

Saddam has not threatened the United States with war. The United States has threatened Iraq. So if you're saying that choosing war as as option is itself a war crime, then it would be the United States who will be committing the crime.

If war has already started, then why is the President saying war can be avoided is Saddam complies with the U.N. resolutions and disarms? We've had skirmishes in the no fly zone before. We've had a lot of military resources committed to a lot of places for many years, one might just as well say we have been in a continuous war since 1948.