Think I might vote against Bush the next time

[davefoc]

In thirty years, I have voted for two democrats, Jerry Brown for governor of California (because his anti-establishment approach appealed to me) and Carter for president (because Ford pardoned Nixon).

I think I might vote for my third Democrat this time around in the presidential vote.

I vote for Republicans because I believe in limited government and I think that is generally the most important issue going. Foreign policy is even more important in my mind, but I generally see Democrats and Republicans as about the same on this. They criticize each other but both parties actually do about the same things.

In the current circumstances I think foreign policy is a more important aspect of the presidency and I am concerned that Bush and company are not doing well at that. I was weakly in favor of the war, for moral reasons (I thought it was morally despicable to abandon the Kurds the first time around), for practical reasons (how long could Britain and US contain Hussein after sanctions were lifted), because of WMD and because I trusted Powell and Tony Blair.

I still don't know that the war was a bad idea and that the world isn't far better off because of it, but I'm ready to give somebody else a chance I think. Clearly Powell and Blair, if they were honest. were fooled as to the threat of WMD. So the credibility of these people is now much more suspect than before the war.

[Questioninggeller]

I didn't vote last election because Gore and Bush were both losers, but after everything that has happened since the aftermath of 9/11/01, I too will be voting against Bush in 2004.

[shemp]

This is a no-brainer. It's like asking someone if they'd rather have a cone full of ice cream or horse $hit.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by shemp
This is a no-brainer. It's like asking someone if they'd rather have a cone full of ice cream or horse $hit. '

I think you're going to find a lot of people next election more than willing to scarf down that cone full of horse $hit.

[shemp]

Originally posted by KelvinG
'

I think you're going to find a lot of people next election more than willing to scarf down that cone full of horse $hit.

That's exactly what they'll get if they reelect him.

[Tony]

I shudder to think what we'll get if one of the other dips**t candidate gets elected. It seems like every candidate has an aura of ineptitude. The only guy that (who by the way, I happen to disagree with and probably wouldn’t vote for) has any leadership qualities is Howard Dean.

[Mercutio]

I have heard people say they would vote for a trained chimp over Bush next election. I disagree strongly! There is no reason the chimp must be trained!

[davefoc]

I don't want to sound too confrontational here, but bashing the president is pretty easy to do, no matter who he is and what he does.

These are difficult times, with difficult decisions to be made. And at times like this it's even easier to bash the president, because there are no total win-win solutions available.

Perhaps, some of the bashers might offer a little more detail about their thoughts and why things might have been so much better off if only they'd been in charge.

[Clancie]

Posted by davefoc

I think I might vote for my third Democrat this time around in the presidential vote.
I've heard two other Republicans say they're exploring the same possibility. No particular Dem seems to appeal to either of them yet, though.
Posted by davefoc

I vote for Republicans because I believe in limited government
Hmmm....Did you see the articles last week about how the government has expanded greatly under Bush? I couldn't find the one I read, but here is a link from David Broder, citing much the same trends.

Here are a couple of his points (rearranged to keep organized in this small space):

Expanding the Government Under Bush (http://www.chewinthefat.com/artman/publish/article_160.shtml)

(When Bush was running for President), asked about the economy, he said he would keep government modest, because "the surest way to make sure prosperity slows down is to expand the role and scope and size of the federal government."

That was then. Now that Bush is running the federal government, its size doesn't bother him so much. Two years after taking office, Bush is presiding over the biggest, most expensive federal government in history.

He has created a mammoth Cabinet department, increased federal spending, imposed new federal rules on local and state governments, and injected federal requirements into every public school in America.

Meanwhile, the U.S. military is expanding too, and not only because it is scouring the world for Sept. 11-style threats. It now seeks to fulfill a more expansive vision of America's role that mirrors Bush's more expansive vision of government in general.

Gone is the Bush who spoke of "humility" in foreign affairs and warned against "nation-building" and overextending America's military.

Now the administration talks about meeting America's "unparalleled responsibilities" as it maintains a quarter-million troops abroad, garrisons in more than two dozen countries and smaller detachments in 114 others.

As it does so, the administration must reinforce the military
and intelligence infrastructure here to help sustain missions abroad.

Money is one measure of the new era of big government.

While the administration and Congress have fostered the impression that the war against terrorism is to blame for rising federal spending, Fortune magazine writer Jeff Birnbaum has observed that "only about a third of the additional spending this year can be attributed to the war on terror. The rest is testament to a fact that predates Sept. 11: The era of big government has returned."

[Zep]

Thank goodness davefoc has put up a reasoned argument for his choices, and not some rant. Well done, and can you PLEASE ask more of your countrymen to consider this issue and get out and vote next time! For or against any condidates isn't my point, I would just love to see more voters actually voting in the USA.

To be honest (and I'm speaking as a non-US citizen), GWB and his close coterie seem to have demonstrated a singular lack of understanding of international affairs and diplomacy. Expecially diplomacy. Their actions bespeak of lack of knowledge, and worse, lack of desire for knowledge of things beyond their own immediate political agenda. I would even go so far as to suggest that even the most ardent and patriotic US conservatives here in this forum (you know who you are!) would know significantly more about international politics than the guys in power, and so could probably offer a more cogent and rational approach to US foreign policy than has been displayed over the last 12 months.

Out here, we are simply watching GWB lurch downwards while spending hundreds of billions of US taxpayers' money trying to mop up after a bad decision. There must surely be a better choice somewhere...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by davefoc
I don't want to sound too confrontational here, but bashing the president is pretty easy to do, no matter who he is and what he does.

These are difficult times, with difficult decisions to be made. And at times like this it's even easier to bash the president, because there are no total win-win solutions available.

Perhaps, some of the bashers might offer a little more detail about their thoughts and why things might have been so much better off if only they'd been in charge. Dave,

I admire your honesty. If things don't change then I'm quite certain Bush will lose. Bush made a decision and he will now have to live with it. I think his decision was not a political one but one based on what he percieved was right.

The bashers and the haters be they anti-Clinton or anti-Bush don't care about the truth. Ideology is all that drives them. The Shemps of this world only care that their side wins.

I don't know if I will vote for Bush. I question a number of his decisions including his insistence on a number of his judicial appointments. I think the war was the correct choice. I don't think the economy was his fault. I predicted (I wasn't alone in that prediction) before the election that the economy would tank and that there would be a long period of recovery. If Gore would have one his economic policies might have lead to a shorter recovery period. We will never know. We do know that Bush's policies have not created a turn around at least not yet. I suspect that even if there is a turn around like there was when his father was president that it will be too late.

It's refreshing to know that there are people on the forum who are capable of objectivity and critical thought. It's sad that there are so few of them.

Thank you,

RandFan

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
Thank goodness davefoc has put up a reasoned argument for his choices, and not some rant. Well done, and can you PLEASE ask more of your countrymen to consider this issue and get out and vote next time! For or against any condidates isn't my point, I would just love to see more voters actually voting in the USA.

To be honest (and I'm speaking as a non-US citizen), GWB and his close coterie seem to have demonstrated a singular lack of understanding of international affairs and diplomacy. Expecially diplomacy. Their actions bespeak of lack of knowledge, and worse, lack of desire for knowledge of things beyond their own immediate political agenda. I would even go so far as to suggest that even the most ardent and patriotic US conservatives here in this forum (you know who you are!) would know significantly more about international politics than the guys in power, and so could probably offer a more cogent and rational approach to US foreign policy than has been displayed over the last 12 months. I honestly disagre with you. I think the choices were difficult but appropriate. I don't see why everyone elses opinion really matters. The argument is ad populum.

Those who are giving council to GWB have many years of experience and are doing a good job. Just becaue you disagree doesn't make you right. The world has changed since the end of the cold war. France and Germany no longer see themselves as allies and do not like our position in the world. It was quite self serving of Russia, Germany and France to oppose us. We shouldn't automatically give in to those who do not have our best interests at heart.

I respect you zep and your opinion. I hope that you can respect mine. I am confident that given time, regardless of whether or not Bush wins reelection the decisions made in foreign policy will prove to be the correct ones.

RandFan

[Zep]

Originally posted by RandFan I honestly disagre with you. I think the choices were difficult but appropriate. I don't see why everyone elses opinion really matters. The argument is ad populum.

I can certainly see that the choices were indeed difficult, but I have suggested previously that there were far more choices than those entertained and the one ultimately chosen re Iraq.

Those who are giving council to GWB have many years of experience and are doing a good job.

But were ALL the councillors listened to? Or just the hawks. I got a VERY strong impression that people like Powell, who has been down this route before and has considerable experience, had their advice simply ignored. Powell, being the good team player, hasn't spoken against the issue, but it was somewhat obvious that he didn't really want to speak for it either. I wonder if his withdrawal from this level of politics (for now?) is indicative of his feelings on this...

Just becaue you disagree doesn't make you right. The world has changed since the end of the cold war. France and Germany no longer see themselves as allies and do not like our position in the world. It was quite self serving of Russia, Germany and France to oppose us. We shouldn't automatically give in to those who do not have our best interests at heart.

I know about the Cold War because I have lived through most of it. No-one was (nor still is) expecting intended adversaries to ride roughshod and unopposed. But there are other ways and means of getting better results than by shooting at people to start with. I'm referring now to the use of "intelligence" as in "clever brains" (rather than "information"). I know the US can do this - the instances of it are many.

I respect you zep and your opinion. I hope that you can respect mine.

Of course! I think my point is that people such as yourself would be better informed about the reality of the situation, and the political opinions of friends and foes, that the US department of foreign affairs seems to be.

I am confident that given time, regardless of whether or not Bush wins reelection the decisions made in foreign policy will prove to be the correct ones.

RandFan

It used to be "speak softly and carry a big stick", meaning that diplomacy headed the charge. This allowed friend and foe alike the opportunity to make amends or adjustments in your favour. Now it seems to be "speak loudly and swing a big stick", which leaves no room for diplomacy OR backing down, and discourages friend and foe alike.

[Earthborn]

France and Germany no longer see themselves as allies and do not like our position in the world.You accuse them of self-serving politics. You should also consider how self-serving that is.

I have heard several political analysts say that if the US wasn't as undiplomatic in treating France, the French might very well have joined the 'Coalition of the Willing'. But their questions about the legitimacy about the attack were answered in such a way that they couldn't have joined without losing face.

The Germans simply could not have supported the attack on Iraq, as it would have caused a constitutional crisis. Their constitution, imposed on them by the US after WW2, forbids them to support any unprovoked attack.I don't see why everyone elses opinion really matters.In matters of politics, is there anything else that matters?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by davefoc
In thirty years, I have voted for two democrats, Jerry Brown for governor of California (because his anti-establishment approach appealed to me) and Carter for president (because Ford pardoned Nixon).

I think I might vote for my third Democrat this time around in the presidential vote.

I vote for Republicans because I believe in limited government and I think that is generally the most important issue going. Foreign policy is even more important in my mind, but I generally see Democrats and Republicans as about the same on this. They criticize each other but both parties actually do about the same things.


Can you name one Republican Government that has shrunk the size of government. In Australia, the conservative party always mouths the same platitudes. Every one of these governments grows larger.

It is not so much the size of the government as the policies that it carries out that are the issue.

[apoger]

Due to the complications during the election, Bush would have needed an exceptional presidency to have any chance of a second term. I doubt there are many people out there that consider Bush's presidency better than mediocre.

My hope is that the democrats will be able to put up a decent candidate. Unfortunately I haven't seen much to inspire me. I fear we will be seeing more mediocrity for some time. :(

[Zep]

Originally posted by apoger
My hope is that the democrats will be able to put up a decent candidate. Unfortunately I haven't seen much to inspire me. I fear we will be seeing more mediocrity for some time. :( Democrat or Republican, surely there is someone and a team who is BETTER? More professional, diplomatic, world-wise, capable, vaguely trustworthy? Such people exist in the USA in abundance - is there a consipracy against them being allowed into politics? Or is it that the US public votes for the one with the most razzamattaz instead?

Although I thought Gangs Of New York was a piss-poor film, I did note that it involved an insight into the politics and politicking of the time and place. To my mind, there has been little change in the practice of same since then!

[davefoc]

AUP asked if I could name a Republican administration that had reduced the size of government.

This is a good question and one which I thought somebody might ask when I stated the reasons why I normally vote Republican.

Alas, I don't have a good answer. The fact is that both Republicans and Democrats are fairly committed to increasing the size of government in favor of their particular special interests. And you are right that Republicans generally say they aren't, but I believe that percentage of the GNP that is government expenditure has increased under every president (I stand to be corrected on this). Under some Republican presidents I believe the rate of the increase in government may have been slowed.

I don't know the quantitative numbers but I suspect that Bush is pretty bad (I haven't read Clancie's links yet). On some things it's hard to see how Bush is even a Republican ideologically. I would have thought that just about any Republican president would have vetoed nationalizing the baggage inspectors. I understand that even in Europe private companies handle this. But Bush didn't. He also, for nakedly political reasons, pushed for protection of the steel mills a move that almost certainly was more harmful than beneficial. And he signed the largest agricultural subsidy bill in history, a purely political move because the Republicans are beholden to agricultural interests.

So how come, I keep voting for those Republicans? Well, even though I agree that Repbulicans keep increasing the size of government I think they do it less than Democrats. Democrats also have some particularly pernicious special interests that they are beholden to including the trial lawyers and unions. When left alone California's a pretty good example of what happens when Democrats are given a free hand. As discussed in other threads the Democrats have put California in a precarious economic position that we may not recover from for years to come. Although, in the case of California, I think the governor is the main culpret. Legislatures, Republican or Democratic will always try to spend too much and provide too many benefits to their various special interests, only the president or governor can prevent it and in California our governor didn't.

[Jon_in_london]

Ill second what Zep said.

On the 12 September 2001, the US had a stock of diplomatic capital and international goodwill the likes of which have never been seen before and may never be seen again.

The Bush admin. has simply wasted, squanderd and pissed away all of this diplomatic capital in a remarkably short period period of time. The diplomatic incompetency of the Bush admin is simply mind-boggling.

[Mr Manifesto]

But wait! What about all of George W's acheivements?

There's George as Cowboy:

http://www.thrusts.org/bush2004.jpg

George as Jet Fighter Pilot (vrrrrrrrrrrm!)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.landing/story.bush.main.wave.jpg

Bush as astronaut...

[shanek]

As much as I dislike Bush, I have to say that I dislike even more the idea of voting against somebody. If you think Bush is dangerous and needs to be gone, that's fine; but to decide now whom to vote for when you don't even know who will be opposing him is just foolishness. How do you know you won't get anybody worse?

This is exactly how Bush got elected to begin with. There were so many people afraid of Gore, because he would cause government spending to increase as much as Clinton did, because he would meddle in world affairs, etc. So they voted for Bush, and got someone who did all of these things to a much greater degree than even Gore was planning to!

What's more, they completely failed to listen when people kept pointing out that there were all these indications that Bush was going to do what he ended up doing. They were fighting the good fight; they were keeping the evil Al Gore out of office.

I say, don't vote against anyone. Find a candidate who best fits your ideas and principles and vote for him, even if you have to go to a third party to do it. Trust me, if you do that, you'll feel much better about yourself. It's great not having to hold your nose when you vote!

[shuize]

In my world travels post 9/11 it seemed the US did indeed have a lot of political good will from the rest of the world immediately following the attacks. Right up until we decided to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan for sheltering Bin Ladin, that is. (This is word for word what several of my Japanese and other foreign associates have told me). Afghanistan?! That action of course had about a 95% approval rating at home in the US. But I'm sure others in the forum could enlighten me on what the US was supposed to do to preserve the warm fuzzy feelings of sympathy the world felt toward the US after watching 3,000 citizens burned, buried, or jumping to their deaths without just turning the other cheek to keep the rest of the world happy.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by shemp
It's like asking someone if they'd rather have a cone full of ice cream or horse $hit. I think a better analogy, at this point, is offering either a cone full of horse $hit or something else.

Chances are the something else will be better than definitely getting the horse $hit, but there is a possibility it could be worse.

At this point, I'm ready to take my chances with the something else. If we later find out it's radioactive, plutonium laced horse $hit, I'll change my mind.

[Zep]

Originally posted by shuize
In my world travels post 9/11 it seemed the US did indeed have a lot of political good will from the rest of the world immediately following the attacks. Right up until we decided to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan for sheltering Bin Ladin, that is. (This is word for word what several of my Japanese and other foreign associates have told me). Afghanistan?! That action of course had about a 95% approval rating at home in the US. But I'm sure others in the forum could enlighten me on what the US was supposed to do to preserve the warm fuzzy feelings of sympathy the world felt toward the US after watching 3,000 citizens burned, buried, or jumping to their deaths without just turning the other cheek to keep the rest of the world happy. There were quite a few OTHER NATIONALITIES in the WTC besides "Americans" - some hundreds, in fact, including Australians. But we didn't see all those countries going on the warpath. Why was that?

And 202 people, 88 of whom were Australian, died in the Bali bombing this time last year. Our response? It's going through the Indonesian courts now with the help of Australian police - the criminals are being cought, prosecuted in courts of law, and death sentences are being pronounced against the fanatics who did this. No-one was threatened or shot at to get this result, no homes razed, no friends lost. The fanatics' power and support base is dwindling and will be wiped out.

Better solution? You be the judge.

[shuize]

Hey, that's a great idea! Why didn't we think of that? An arrest warrant served on the Taliban government for the arrest of one Osama Bin Ladin, terrorist mastermind. I'm sure that would have done the trick. We certainly had enough evidence, especially after the first WTC bombing, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy attacks, and the strike on the U.S.S. Cole. And while we were applying for warrants, we should have just picked up another one for Saddam Hussian while we were at it. Man, you Australians sure think of everything. Is that all it would have taken to bring them in and keep the rest of the world happy? Sheesh, why didn't you just say so?

[Larspeart]

Davefoc,

Vote libertarian.

No, I am not as militant as Shanek. I vote Libertarian for a lot of the 'saner' reasons that exist. The ones that MANY people say 'ya know, I agree with them on all of these issues. I just wish there wasn't that one, or that one.'

Limited government, personal freedom and liberty, reduced taxes, self-accountability, reducing/cutting foreign aid, repealing drug laws and victimless crimes, and most of all, 'cutting the fat' from the bureaucracy that is the government.

Well, that and the republicans and democrats have becoming the SAME party, spewing the same lies (like last nights address) term after term, regardless of who is in charge.

I grew up and voted almost straight republican for years before I woke up and saw that.

I may not vote for the winner of an election, but I do vote for what my heart tells me is right. No matter how close an election gets, and no matter how hard my family begs me not to 'waste my vote', I hold steady.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep
There were quite a few OTHER NATIONALITIES in the WTC besides "Americans" - some hundreds, in fact, including Australians. But we didn't see all those countries going on the warpath. Why was that?


Because those other countries were not attacked. Duh!!!

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by davefoc

I vote for Republicans because I believe in limited government and I think that is generally the most important issue going.
Carnivore - oops, I meant Echelon.
TIA.

Even ignoring foreign wars entirely, the power of the cental gevernment has grown in disturbing ways under the Bush administration, and his love of secrecy is disturbing.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by shuize
In my world travels post 9/11 it seemed the US did indeed have a lot of political good will from the rest of the world immediately following the attacks. Right up until we decided to go after the Taliban in Afghanistan for sheltering Bin Ladin, that is. (This is word for word what several of my Japanese and other foreign associates have told me). Afghanistan?! That action of course had about a 95% approval rating at home in the US. But I'm sure others in the forum could enlighten me on what the US was supposed to do to preserve the warm fuzzy feelings of sympathy the world felt toward the US after watching 3,000 citizens burned, buried, or jumping to their deaths without just turning the other cheek to keep the rest of the world happy.

Actually I think a hell of a lot of people supported the US (and others) actions in afghanistan. It was only when the Bush admin started waving its fists at Iraq (and everybody that refused to tow thier line) that things really got very bad in terms of loss of diplomatic capital.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Zep
It used to be "speak softly and carry a big stick", meaning that diplomacy headed the charge. This allowed friend and foe alike the opportunity to make amends or adjustments in your favour. Now it seems to be "speak loudly and swing a big stick", which leaves no room for diplomacy OR backing down, and discourages friend and foe alike. For 12 years America used diplomacy to deal with Iraq. Let's at least be honest enough to admit that diplomacy WAS sought after first. Saddam had many opportunities to reverse course.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
Dave,


The bashers and the haters be they anti-Clinton or anti-Bush don't care about the truth. Ideology is all that drives them. The Shemps of this world only care that their side wins.

It's refreshing to know that there are people on the forum who are capable of objectivity and critical thought. It's sad that there are so few of them.



Indeed.

There are many of us who watched this all gearing up and simply said "Wait a second! You haven't planned this properly! You'll be sorry if you go in without UN support! You haven't thought this through! You have no exit strategy!"

We were RIGHT. Period! And now we are outraged, because you people on the right simply would... not... listen.

It is downright maddening to see come to pass precisely the sort of quagmire we predicted. GB deserves a dope-slap and he's going to get it.

You know what's really ironic? George senior's decision not to press on into Baghdad and take Saddam out is now justified. We couldn't have found him anyway.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You accuse them of self-serving politics. You should also consider how self-serving that is. Just stating the facts. France, Germany and Russia had been pressuring the US to end the sanctions for years. It was a fact that they all had agreements with Iraq for oil and rebuilding of Iraq's ifrastructure.

I have heard several political analysts say that if the US wasn't as undiplomatic in treating France, the French might very well have joined the 'Coalition of the Willing'. Well, that settles it doesn't it? The opinions of several political analysts?

But their questions about the legitimacy about the attack were answered in such a way that they couldn't have joined without losing face. We gave all of the countries every oppurtinity. They dug themselves an impossible hole. It was France who declared that they would "never" support any action after they voted the opposite. Please don't blame that on us.

The Germans simply could not have supported the attack on Iraq, as it would have caused a constitutional crisis. Their constitution, imposed on them by the US after WW2, forbids them to support any unprovoked attack.In matters of politics, is there anything else that matters? You are twisting the facts. We did not need Germany to militarily "support" the invasion. And that is not the support we were seeking. Nothing in their constitution forbids them from morally supporting a country that came to their aid when the Soviets cut off all food support to West Berlin. Nothing in their constitution required them to oppose us the way the did.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
There are many of us who watched this all gearing up and simply said "Wait a second! You haven't planned this properly! You'll be sorry if you go in without UN support! You haven't thought this through! You have no exit strategy!" We did think it through and acted appropriately. Just because you don't like the way things worked out doesn't make you right.

We were RIGHT. Period! And now we are outraged, because you people on the right simply would... not... listen. And you ARE wrong. We knew that this was going to be difficult.

It is downright maddening to see come to pass precisely the sort of quagmire we predicted. GB deserves a dope-slap and he's going to get it. Quagmire????? 47,000 Americans died in Vietnam. THAT WAS a quagmire.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
We did think it through and acted appropriately. Just because you don't like the way things worked out doesn't make you right.



Uhh, actually, yes it does. We SAID this was what would happen. That's the definition of "right". All you right wingers just shushed us and called us disloyal and every other name in the book. And now exactly what we predicted is here. We were 100% correct. Period.


And you ARE wrong. We knew that this was going to be difficult.



Sorry, saying we're wrong doesn't make it so. Of course it was going to be difficult. That doesn't hide the plain fact that there was no plan. Of COURSE it's going badly!



Quagmire????? 47,000 Americans died in Vietnam. THAT WAS a quagmire.

Weak. ;)

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
On the 12 September 2001, the US had a stock of diplomatic capital and international goodwill the likes of which have never been seen before and may never be seen again. This is such a joke. The capital was so week it coudn't stand up to removing a murderous thug who had 12 years to comply with resolutions.

The Bush admin. has simply wasted, squanderd and pissed away all of this diplomatic capital in a remarkably short period period of time. Yeah, all of that capital. How many nations went to Afghanastan? I'm so sick if this BS. People felt bad for us. BFD. We try and remove a man who is killing tens of thousands of his own people and the world has a hissy fit.

THERE WAS NO CAPITAL! Just a boatload of people who felt sorry.

The diplomatic incompetency of the Bush admin is simply mind-boggling. Rhetorical.

[shuize]

Quagmire. Now there's a politically loaded word.

I remember when the media trotted it out during the Afghanistan conflict on about day three. Wrong then, of course. But the funny thing was, I could have sworn they wanted it to be true.

Indeed.

Ideology is still driving those same people, I think. Maybe it's driving me, too. For example, it would probably be very ideological of me to point out that Clinton bombed the hell out of Serbia without UN approval and posted US troops in the former Yugoslavia, who by the way, are still there of course getting there arms and legs blown off by mines. Funny we don't hear much from the "quagmire" crowd about that mission. But, hey, it's only been what, 5 years now?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
For 12 years America used diplomacy to deal with Iraq. Let's at least be honest enough to admit that diplomacy WAS sought after first. Saddam had many opportunities to reverse course.
And it appears that diplomacy was working, along with sanctions. There were no attacks, no use of WMDs, and to my knowledge, no wholesale executions since Gulf War I. It is apparent that Saddam had dismantled most of his weapons-making machinery and we can't even find anyone who knows anything about it.

The only reason we gave up on diplomacy is because Bush et. al. started screaming "WMDs! WMDs!" What a horrible and costly mistake.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Sundog
Uhh, actually, yes it does. We SAID this was what would happen. That's the definition of "right". All you right wingers just shushed us and called us disloyal and every other name in the book. And now exactly what we predicted is here. We were 100% correct. Period. We said that it was going to be difficult. No one pretended that this was going to be easy.

Sorry, saying we're wrong doesn't make it so. Of course it was going to be difficult. That doesn't hide the plain fact that there was no plan. Of COURSE it's going badly! Yes, there was a plan and we knew it was going to be difficult.

Weak. ;) Weak????? Define "quagmire"? The Palestinians are willing to die by the thousands for what they think is right. Our actions have freed thousands and prevented the deaths of tens of thousands. 173 have died. This is tragic but it does not as yet consitute a quagmire.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by RandFan
This is such a joke. The capital was so week it coudn't stand up to removing a murderous thug who had 12 years to comply with resolutions.


A mind-boggling oversimplification unworthy of you.

It's wake-up time. It's time for many Americans to wake up and understand that the rest of the world had a valid point of view that we simply ignored.

Bush is the most incompetent President in American history. We went from the most admired to the most despised nation in the world in a few short years. Only a cretin of monumental proportions could have achieved such a thing.

It is HIGH time for at least the intelligent right to sigh and admit that Bush's ham-handed tactics were nothing short of STUPID and that it will take America DECADES to recover our place in the world.

Time to disappear again...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
And it appears that diplomacy was working, along with sanctions. There were no attacks, no use of WMDs, and to my knowledge, no wholesale executions since Gulf War I. It is apparent that Saddam had dismantled most of his weapons-making machinery and we can't even find anyone who knows anything about it.

The only reason we gave up on diplomacy is because Bush et. al. started screaming "WMDs! WMDs!" What a horrible and costly mistake. I will concede that it was the claim of WMDs that drove the war but we have stopped this man from tortureing and mutilating and imprisoning his people.

I don't at all think it was a mistake. I do think the man was dangerous. He invaded Kuwait, he brutally killed many kurds with WMD and he was a threat.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by RandFan
We did think it through and acted appropriately. Just because you don't like the way things worked out doesn't make you right.Wait a sec. How do you justify that? We were unable to find any WMD, as was predicted. We've found, to the best of my knowledge, that Al Queda had anything to do with Iraq before we deposed Saddam. At best, we've only managed to accomplish one of our tertiary goals of liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator. At best, this could only be seen as a partial success.

Further, we obviously didn't have a well planned out exit strategy. Why else are we now asking for additional UN support? Why else are we now talking about occupying Iraq on the order of 5-10 years? None of these were mentioned prior to the war, especially not needing UN support or we wouldn't have alienated them so much.
Quagmire????? 47,000 Americans died in Vietnam. THAT WAS a quagmire. Agreed, but a quagmire doesn't necessarily refer to the mortality rate. It refers to a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position. We are unable to pull out without making the sitation worse than before we went it. Now that we're there, we're stuck.

[RandFan]

I have to go to work guys. I'll pick it back up tonight.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Sundog


A mind-boggling oversimplification unworthy of you.

It's wake-up time. It's time for many Americans to wake up and understand that the rest of the world had a valid point of view that we simply ignored.

Bush is the most incompetent President in American history. We went from the most admired to the most despised nation in the world in a few short years. Only a cretin of monumental proportions could have achieved such a thing.

It is HIGH time for at least the intelligent right to sigh and admit that Bush's ham-handed tactics were nothing short of STUPID and that it will take America DECADES to recover our place in the world.

Time to disappear again...

Yes, America has been cast adrift in the sea of world opinion. That must be why all the immigrants are leaving the U.S. in dro... oh, wait ... that's not what's happening. They're still drowning trying to get into the "most despised nation in the world."

I'm sure glad you're not one of those ideological people like me Sundog who can't put my political prejudice aside to see reality.

[DavidJames]

"It's time for many Americans to wake up and understand that the rest of the world had a valid point of view that we simply ignored."

The problem is many Americans say tough and don't give a crap what the other countries think. They are perfectly content believing:

It's us against the world and...
You are with us or you are against us, after all...
We are a country blessed by God so it's...
Our country right or wrong

and if those foreigners don't like it, screw em.

Oh, and we want your money to clean up after us, cause we know what's best even if you don't :rolleyes:

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shuize


Yes, America has been cast adrift in the sea of world opinion. That must be why all the immigrants are leaving the U.S. in dro... oh, wait ... that's not what's happening. They're still drowning trying to get into the "most despised nation in the world."

I'm sure glad you're not one of those ideological people like me Sundog who can't put my political prejudice aside to see reality.

Is there supposed to be a point of some kind hidden here? What on Earth do the two things have to do with each other?

This is the problem I have conversing with many Republicans. Your logic is worthy of a child, not an adult.

[Upchurch]

Ok, well. Waiting for RandFan to return, can anyone else justify that this war was a success? Or even justify that a pre-emptive attack was required or even necessary?

The pre-emptive strike is the part about all this that really bothers me. How can such a thing be justified? Afganistan, I could understand. They were protecting those that had attacked us and so, acted as accomplices of a sort. But Iraq? What had they done, other than to be a thorn in our sides and to be in the same general region of the world? They weren't an immenent threat, as many people said, and I think GWB knew that.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shuize
Yes, America has been cast adrift in the sea of world opinion. That must be why all the immigrants are leaving the U.S. in dro... oh, wait ... that's not what's happening. They're still drowning trying to get into the "most despised nation in the world."
False analogy. America is a wealthy nation. It is not surprising that people from poor countries want to get some of that wealth. This has nothing to do with whether or not they like the policies of America, or even that they think about them. Many Americans like to pass this off by saying "They are just jealous," but such dismissal of legitimate complaints hurts our international image even further.

Working in the Oil biz, I have a lot of friends who, for financial and career reasons, have taken jobs in Saudi Arabia and other despotic countries. This does not mean that they subscribe to the policies of those countries.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Sundog


Is there supposed to be a point of some kind hidden here? What on Earth do the two things have to do with each other?

This is the problem I have conversing with many Republicans. Your logic is worthy of a child, not an adult.

Your opinion is highly thought of on this end as well.

But I'll spell it out for you as you apparantly can't quite grasp the child-logic I've employed (By the way, don't bother apologizing for the ad hominem attack, I'll just assume that's how you display your frustration with difficult new ideas ... sort of like "a child" when who gets left behind in class).

Here's what the two things have to do with each other:

You stated above that America is now the most despised nation in the world and it will take decades to recover our place of former respect.

In my response, I used sarcasm (we children like that) to point out for such a despised nation, people sure go to a lot of risk, even to the point of drowning, to get here. (Starting to get it?)

I guess your postive response to the statement above about not letting ideology keep one from objectivity and critical thought was just lipservice to give yourself a platform to badmouth Republicans (of which I am not one) that do not hold similar views.

Not that I really expect you to appreciate much of this, but feel free to let me know if you're still not getting it. Don't have a tantrum and leave the board again, whatever you do.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shuize


Your opinion is highly thought of on this end as well.

But I'll spell it out for you as you apparantly can't quite grasp the child-logic I've employed

Tricky has already very effectively blasted your silly opinion into the ozone. I have nothing further to add.

[shuize]

My silly opinion that America just might not be the most despised nation on earth and it won't take decades to regain our position in the world ... how silly of me.

And I wonder how many of Tricky's friends are dying to get into Saudi Arabia? If they're not, is it just the money that brings all the immigrants to our "despised" land then?

[Leroy]

Originally posted by Sundog


A mind-boggling oversimplification unworthy of you.

It's wake-up time. It's time for many Americans to wake up and understand that the rest of the world had a valid point of view that we simply ignored.

Bush is the most incompetent President in American history. We went from the most admired to the most despised nation in the world in a few short years. Only a cretin of monumental proportions could have achieved such a thing.

It is HIGH time for at least the intelligent right to sigh and admit that Bush's ham-handed tactics were nothing short of STUPID and that it will take America DECADES to recover our place in the world.

Time to disappear again...

Is there any truth to the rumors that are circling the internet about the next election being rigged :roll: some are saying that the new computer voting system votes for Bush even if you punch someone else.

c'mom folks, are we getting paranoid?

I do agree that Bush needs out. I do agree that he is incompetent and that he has put his own special interests ahead of what is good for this country. Or should I say the interests of those who paid big bucks to get him where he is now.

We do need a new president, question is, who is best for the job?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shuize
And I wonder how many of Tricky's friends are dying to get into Saudi Arabia?
They are certainly taking a big risk by working there. Same is true of our people in Venezuela, who don't support Chavez.

Originally posted by shuize
If they're not, is it just the money that brings all the immigrants to our "despised" land then?
Mostly, yes. Of course, the lifestyle may be better here, but I think you can include that under the general catagory of "wealth".

For the record, though, I don't think America is the "most despised country in the world" or even near the top. We could be the most beloved country in the world if weren't so schizophrenic.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Leroy
We do need a new president, question is, who is best for the job?
You'll have to wait a few years until she's been a senator for a while.:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Tricky

You'll have to wait a few years until she's been a senator for a while.:D Trick! Tell me it ain't so! Tell me you're joking!

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Trick! Tell me it ain't so! Tell me you're joking! Why? What's wrong with Dianne Feinstein?

[nightwind]

Well, at this point, I am not for sure who I will be voting for, however I will not be voting for Bush.

However, being from Texas,and listening to folks talk, I can tell you that a lot of folks will vote for him, just because he is from Texas.

And they would vote for him, even if he invaded Switzerland.

But I do feel it will be a close race. I just hope that it is not turned over to the Supreme Court this time.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Trick! Tell me it ain't so! Tell me you're joking!

He better be, lest I strip him of his Texas citizenship. :D

[Tricky]

Originally posted by nightwind
Well, at this point, I am not for sure who I will be voting for, however I will not be voting for Bush.

However, being from Texas,and listening to folks talk, I can tell you that a lot of folks will vote for him, just because he is from Texas.

And they would vote for him, even if he invaded Switzerland.

But I do feel it will be a close race. I just hope that it is not turned over to the Supreme Court this time.
It is rare for me to say so far in advance that I will definately vote against an incumbant. After all, both parties are capable of putting up dreadful candidates. However, at this point it is difficult for me to conceive of anyone who could be worse than Bush. Of course, my vote won't count because as Nightwind implies, nothing short of pi**ing on the Alamo would keep Texas from giving Bush their electoral votes, and he could probably get away with that if he claimed it was to fight terrorism.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Leroy


Is there any truth to the rumors that are circling the internet about the next election being rigged :roll: some are saying that the new computer voting system votes for Bush even if you punch someone else.

c'mom folks, are we getting paranoid?



This article may be the kernel of truth at the heart of the rumors. Not quite as dire as one may make it out to be...

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/business/6646063.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp


CLEVELAND - A wealthy businessman helping the Ohio Republican Party try to win the state in 2004 for President Bush also is the head of a company competing for a state contract to sell voting machines.
Walden O'Dell, chief executive of Diebold Inc., told Republicans in an Aug. 14 fund-raising letter that he is ``committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.''

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Wait a sec. How do you justify that? We were unable to find any WMD, as was predicted. We've found, to the best of my knowledge, that Al Queda had anything to do with Iraq before we deposed Saddam. At best, we've only managed to accomplish one of our tertiary goals of liberating the Iraqi people from a dictator. At best, this could only be seen as a partial success. Hey Upchurch,

I have argued at length that we were justified in invading Iraq because we truly believed he was a threat. I personally am not convinced he wasnt. Though I will concede we have not found WMD. I do know that he did not comply. I think simply saying that he was a thorn in our side is just minimizing the fact that he invaded Kuwait and gassed the kurds.

Further, we obviously didn't have a well planned out exit strategy. Why else are we now asking for additional UN support? Because Powell thought it was a good idea.

Agreed, but a quagmire doesn't necessarily refer to the mortality rate. It refers to a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position. We are unable to pull out without making the sitation worse than before we went it. Now that we're there, we're stuck. In the interest of time I will concede your point.

Thank you for your honest and reasoned response. I will give you the last word. I have decided to end my association with the forum but I have really apreciated your willingness to discuss and debate in an intelegent fashion.

Thanks,

RandFan

[shanek]

Originally posted by Larspeart
No, I am not as militant as Shanek. I vote Libertarian for a lot of the 'saner' reasons that exist. The ones that MANY people say 'ya know, I agree with them on all of these issues. I just wish there wasn't that one, or that one.'

That's fine. The real question is, whose platform is the closest to what you want? If you want government to be smaller, then the Libertarian Party is much closer to giving you what you want than the Democrats or Republicans.

I grew up and voted almost straight republican for years before I woke up and saw that.

Mini-rant: I HATE straight-party voting. Hate it, hate it, hate it. I don't even vote straight Libertarian (and I can in NC). I think it's antithetical to the whole idea of voting. You're essentially deferring your decision to someone else. Straight-party voting should be eliminated from every ballot, everywhere.

I may not vote for the winner of an election, but I do vote for what my heart tells me is right. No matter how close an election gets, and no matter how hard my family begs me not to 'waste my vote', I hold steady.

And don't you feel so much better about yourself for doing so? I know I do.

[Zep]

Originally posted by shuize
Hey, that's a great idea! Why didn't we think of that? An arrest warrant served on the Taliban government for the arrest of one Osama Bin Ladin, terrorist mastermind. I'm sure that would have done the trick. We certainly had enough evidence, especially after the first WTC bombing, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy attacks, and the strike on the U.S.S. Cole. And while we were applying for warrants, we should have just picked up another one for Saddam Hussian while we were at it. Man, you Australians sure think of everything. Is that all it would have taken to bring them in and keep the rest of the world happy? Sheesh, why didn't you just say so? Ho ho ho.

*sigh*

Ends justifies the means? No idea what the REAL goal is in dealing with these people? No sense of the politics and diplomacy involved? Not getting other people to think it is their idea to do your bidding for you? Not realising that they are a medusa - lopping the head doesn't kill the beast? Not realising that killing them just makes martyrs and more enemies?

What alternatives to all-out aggression WERE posited? Were they followed up? If Bin Laden and his coterie was the only target, why not a simple hit-squad (and don't tell me US special services can't do this)? Engineering coups is a CIA speciality - they did it before in Iraq, why not again now?

No I don't have all the answers. But did anyone actually ask any questions?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Zep
There were quite a few OTHER NATIONALITIES in the WTC besides "Americans" - some hundreds, in fact, including Australians. But we didn't see all those countries going on the warpath. Why was that?
Originally posted by Tony
Because those other countries were not attacked. Duh!!! Oh, I see. The guys flying the planes into the WTC asked all non-US occupants to leave the building first? :rolleyes:

Australian citizens WERE attacked and killed in the WTC. Ergo Australia WAS attacked also. And so were a number of other countries by the same logic. And then MORE Australians were attacked and killed in Bali too, by self-confessed Al Quaeda linked militants. As were citizens of other countries and of Bali. We were and are under attack from these militants, in the main because we are an open ally of the USA.

What did you think we did here in Australia when these bombings happened? That we just shrugged and ignored it, and went on with our lives? That we didn't care because we didn't shoot somebody or immediately invade somewhere with force of arms? You have another serious think coming if you do.

[shuize]

Well, if Randfan leaves, that may just be it for me as well.

It's been interesting debating with you all.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep



Australian citizens WERE attacked and killed in the WTC. Ergo Australia WAS attacked also. And so were a number of other countries by the same logic. And then MORE Australians were attacked and killed in Bali too, by self-confessed Al Quaeda linked militants. As were citizens of other countries and of Bali. We were and are under attack from these militants, in the main because we are an open ally of the USA.


Thats such ********, apparently you dont know where New York city is. ITS IN AMERICA DUMBASS, america was attacked, not australia.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tony Thats such ********, apparently you dont know where New York city is. ITS IN AMERICA DUMBASS, america was attacked, not australia. How old did you say you were? Four? Five? Having a little tantrum, are we?

I'm obviously not getting through to you, am I, or you're just being deliberately dense. It only makes sense if you ARE a young brat.

On second thoughts, I'm not going to bother with you any more. You're no longer worth the effort of talking to, buster, if all you can do is shout and swear at me. You will be my first Ignore candidate.

Bye, tony.

Oh, and learn to spell and punctuate properly and capitalise proper nouns if you want to start impressing people with your "superior brain-power," OK?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zep


On second thoughts, I'm not going to bother with you any more. You're no longer worth the effort of talking to, buster, if all you can do is shout and swear at me. You will be my first Ignore candidate.

Bye, tony.



Good!! Now I wont have to be troubled with your idiocy.


I'm obviously not getting through to you, am I, or you're just being deliberately dense. It only makes sense if you ARE a young brat.

That's fresh!! Your the idiot that thinks an attack on american soil translates to an attack on australia.

[Upchurch]

I'm curious Tony, would you not consider an attack on Americans in a foreign country an attack on America itself?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog
Bush is the most incompetent President in American history.

Thank you for your opinion. It tells us alot about your knowledge of American history.

For starters, try reading the history of U.S. Grant's time in office before posting something so obviously biased and ridiculous.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Thank you for your opinion. It tells us alot about your knowledge of American history.


Not really. Perhaps it reveals my fondness for hyperbole. :D

Offhand I can't think of any president who has mucked things up so thoroughly in such a short amount of time. But as I'm always interested in education, I will follow your suggestion.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Why? What's wrong with Dianne Feinstein?


OOhhhhh, that's SSccaarryyy! :eek:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Sundog


Not really. Perhaps it reveals my fondness for hyperbole. :D

Offhand I can't think of any president who has mucked things up so thoroughly in such a short amount of time. But as I'm always interested in education, I will follow your suggestion.

Hyperbole is a horse of a different color (and doesn't come across well in posts...)!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Hyperbole is a horse of a different color (and doesn't come across well in posts...)!

Yeah, you have to give an indication to some of the slower posters on this forum that you're using hyperbole.

This is probably sufficient:

<marquee direction=left>HYPERBOLE ALERT! HYPERBOLE ALERT!</marquee>

HYPERBOLE HERE!--> Bush is the worst president of all time. <--HYPERBOLE HERE!

<marquee direction=right>HYPERBOLE ALERT! HYPERBOLE ALERT!</marquee>

You may still want to PM certain forum users just to make sure they understand you are in fact using hyperbole.

[Upchurch]

:D :D :D

Okay, that's just over the top funny

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yeah, you have to give an indication to some of the slower posters on this forum that you're using hyperbole.

This is probably sufficient:

<marquee direction=left>HYPERBOLE ALERT! HYPERBOLE ALERT!</marquee>

HYPERBOLE HERE!--> Bush is the worst president of all time. <--HYPERBOLE HERE!

<marquee direction=right>HYPERBOLE ALERT! HYPERBOLE ALERT!</marquee>

You may still want to PM certain forum users just to make sure they understand you are in fact using hyperbole.


A lesson you've obviously learned well, MM...

Thanks for the heads up though. I'll keep you in mind...

[davefoc]

Thank you to Clancie for her link. Repeated here for convenience:
http://www.chewinthefat.com/artman/publish/article_160.shtml

One thing that the editorial corrected me on was the notion that the percentage of government spending in the total GDP is always expanding. Apparently during the Clinton administration, following the end of the cold war government spending actually declined.

I wasn't sure what the difference between the GDP (gross domestic product) and GNP (gross national product) was. This article from Motley Fools explained it.

http://www.fool.com/Features/1998/980130ThingCalledGDP.htm

[Leroy]

Posted by Andonyx - This article may be the kernel of truth at the heart of the rumors. Not quite as dire as one may make it out to be...

hmm. He didn't list any sources but it was an interesting article.

That's fresh!! Your the idiot that thinks an attack on american soil translates to an attack on australia.

Just my two cents worth, but don't you all think that the attack on American soil, was an attack on America? There were many people who were from other countries that died at the WTC, but the attack was on American Soil. The message was to America. The terrorist made it clear that they are were/are angry at our government.

Yes, they attacked Austrailians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, etc. when they blew up the WTC, but the attack was against Americans, they didn't care how many people from other countries died in the attack, but the attack itself was not intended as an attack on these other countries.

If the taliban was angry at the chinese and they crashed planes in the city of Guangzhou, and there were Americans, Japanese, Austrailians, etc. that were in the city and were killed, would it be an attack on China, or on all of these countries?

[Chaos]

A short note:

I say, don't vote against anyone.

Hell, Bush told you:

"You´re either with us or against us."

That means: if you don´t vote for Bush, you vote against him.


Didn´t he also say:

"You´re either with us or with the terrorists?"

That sounds to me that everyone who doesn´t vote for Bush is terrorist (in Bushs opinion).

If I were an American, I wouldn´t want to vote for someone who says I´m a terrorist if I don´t vote for him.


For us in "Old Europe" these days, it seems a bit like we are witnessing the last years of freedom and democracy in America.:confused:

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chaos
A short note:



Hell, Bush told you:

"You´re either with us or against us."

That means: if you don´t vote for Bush, you vote against him.


Didn´t he also say:

"You´re either with us or with the terrorists?"

That sounds to me that everyone who doesn´t vote for Bush is terrorist (in Bushs opinion).

If I were an American, I wouldn´t want to vote for someone who says I´m a terrorist if I don´t vote for him.


For us in "Old Europe" these days, it seems a bit like we are witnessing the last years of freedom and democracy in America.:confused:

The sky is not falling...

and your logic is flawed...

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by shanek
As much as I dislike Bush, I have to say that I dislike even more the idea of voting against somebody. If you think Bush is dangerous and needs to be gone, that's fine; but to decide now whom to vote for when you don't even know who will be opposing him is just foolishness. How do you know you won't get anybody worse?

This is exactly how Bush got elected to begin with. There were so many people afraid of Gore, because he would cause government spending to increase as much as Clinton did, because he would meddle in world affairs, etc. So they voted for Bush, and got someone who did all of these things to a much greater degree than even Gore was planning to!

What's more, they completely failed to listen when people kept pointing out that there were all these indications that Bush was going to do what he ended up doing. They were fighting the good fight; they were keeping the evil Al Gore out of office.

I say, don't vote against anyone. Find a candidate who best fits your ideas and principles and vote for him, even if you have to go to a third party to do it. Trust me, if you do that, you'll feel much better about yourself. It's great not having to hold your nose when you vote!

Funny tho, Shanek, that so many of those people most fearful of a Gore presidency live in Tennessee! :rolleyes:

What do you think they knew that we didn't?

-z

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ok, well. Waiting for RandFan to return, can anyone else justify that this war was a success? Or even justify that a pre-emptive attack was required or even necessary?

The pre-emptive strike is the part about all this that really bothers me. How can such a thing be justified? Afganistan, I could understand. They were protecting those that had attacked us and so, acted as accomplices of a sort. But Iraq? What had they done, other than to be a thorn in our sides and to be in the same general region of the world? They weren't an immenent threat, as many people said, and I think GWB knew that.

I'll take a stab at justifying this war as a success.

What was the military objective? To remove Saddam from power.
Objective completed, sounds like success to me. The most difficult part of a war has always been restoring order after the war is won, nothing has changed there.

Do you think we would be asking for UN forces if we had found WMD? I don't think so. Yeah, let's replace the best equipped and trained force in the world with an army feared and respected for handing out bags of rice and powdered milk. It's a bone we are tossing back to the world after being publicly humiliated by not finding WMD.

If WMD was the *only* reason that we went to war, then we were wrong, get over it. Go back and read Bush's state of the union address again, WMD was not the only reason cited.

It took 5 years for the US to stabilize Japan after WWII. How long ago was it that the Berlin Wall came down? Have we paid off the Marshall plan yet? Reconstructing Germany was an "international effort", and gee that went well, didn't it?

Do you really think that the US with it's cold war nuclear arsenal feared a few nuke-tipped SCUDs from Saddam? No, it was Saddam's neighbors who feared him most.

Saddam had every intention of resuming his plans to take over Kuwait and Iran as soon as the world wasn't looking. If he ever succeeded in that goal, he could have seriously destabilized the entire world and instead of a few small wars, we would have had perhaps even WWIII on our hands.

There was nothing pre-emptive in this strike whatsoever. Saddam had continually defied the UN resolutions and the restrictions placed upon him after losing the Gulf war. We accepted his promises then, or we would have marched into Baghdad at the time. The mistake we made was not in this Iraq war, but in accepting Saddam's terms of surrender in the Gulf War. We should have finished him off then.

No we haven't caught Saddam and Bin Laden shaking hands and exchanging cash, but Bin Laden mentions Iraq more that he mentions Palestine in his statement after 9/11 (or 11/9 if you prefer), as his reason for attacking the US. What motive did Saddam and Bin Laden have to not cooperate? They had/have common enemies and common goals.

[fishbob]

Funny tho, Shanek, that so many of those people most fearful of a Gore presidency live in Tennessee!

What do you think they knew that we didn't?
Tennessee has a large xian fundamentalist population. The Republican right-wing actively courts these groups. These people are very susceptable to voting as directed by the Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson crowd.

So what the Tennesseeians knew that we didn't know was absolutely nothing. And they were damn proud of it.