RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation

RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

MasterKalif -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (1/31/2007 11:32:38 PM)
this is funny....to the OP, while its true the Democrats have short memories and many of them screamed war and voted for war and now wish they hadn't....doesn't absolve Bush from the fact he lied and started everything...by everything I mean the whole Iraq-democracy-fiasco the US has to deal with....instead of democracy now there is civil war and warlords and extremist religious guerrillas.....makes great ground for building a "democracy"...sarcasm intended. This then is the fault of the opportunistic political system itself....hence I hope Obama wins. No Hillary Clinton, no Bush.

farglebargle -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 12:16:46 AM)
Look at it this way. Bush SINCERELY BELIEVES all that crap about Exporting Democracy, Greeted as Liberators and all that. And he really doesn't understand why The Iraqis Just Don't Get It. Incorrect, Dogmatic Belief can be just as dangerous in a nominal constitutional republic as in the most fascist of states.

Sanity -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 5:13:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I simply said that the DEMOCRATS are pushing a pro-war candidate, and for that I'm labeled a "Bush Apologist"!!! It's the stereotyping. The Democrats sounds like The Bogeyman. WHICH PEOPLE are standing for Hilary? Not me. I still think Denis Kucinich is probably the only one in the pack worthy of any respect. That means he's a non-starter, but there you are. Still, blaming her for believing Bush's lies? Don't you have to hold Bush accountable for those lies first? THEN go through the list holding other accountable? Stereotyping? Oh, I get it - you mean, when you try to make someone sound like the Bogeyman by calling him a "Bush Apologist" or something. And don't look now, but pro-war Hillary is your front runner - PROBABLY your candidate. Liberals are for pro-war Hillary, all the way. And KUCINOVITCH??? He doesn't stand a chance. He looks, sounds and acts too much like some weird little troll that should be scaring litle children from under his bridge somewhere. Sounds like you're all alone out there. Most Democrats aren't really against the war, since most of them are supporting pro-war Hillary, and I'm just pointing that little fact out because it's so damn funny. Build up your lame little strawman and torch it again, who cares. Bill Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq, and his little woman Hillary has always stood by her man...

farglebargle -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 5:23:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: I simply said that the DEMOCRATS are pushing a pro-war candidate, and for that I'm labeled a "Bush Apologist"!!! It's the stereotyping. The Democrats sounds like The Bogeyman. WHICH PEOPLE are standing for Hilary? Not me. I still think Denis Kucinich is probably the only one in the pack worthy of any respect. That means he's a non-starter, but there you are. Still, blaming her for believing Bush's lies? Don't you have to hold Bush accountable for those lies first? THEN go through the list holding other accountable? Stereotyping? Oh, I get it - you mean, when you try to make someone sound like the Bogeyman by calling him a "Bush Apologist" or something. And don't look now, but pro-war Hillary is your front runner - PROBABLY your candidate. Liberals are for pro-war Hillary, all the way. And KUCINOVITCH??? He doesn't stand a chance. He looks, sounds and acts too much like some weird little troll that should be scaring litle children from under his bridge somewhere. Sounds like you're all alone out there. Most Democrats aren't really against the war, since most of them are supporting pro-war Hillary, and I'm just pointing that little fact out because it's so damn funny. Build up your lame little strawman and torch it again, who cares. Bill Clinton bombed the hell out of Iraq, and his little woman Hillary has always stood by her man... Boy, you can't let them talking points go, can you? Despite the elections in 2006 saying "The American People reject the current policies and those who support them", you still believe otherwise. Have fun.

Sanity -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 5:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Boy, you can't let them talking points go, can you? Despite the elections in 2006 saying "The American People reject the current policies and those who support them", you still believe otherwise. Have fun. What is it now, 50 Dems, 49 Republicans and an Independant? Quite the man-date ya got yourself there fargle - almost one whole percent of the vote. Bush did far better in 2004, but did you try to claim that the people had spoken then?

Sinergy -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 5:57:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Boy, you can't let them talking points go, can you? Despite the elections in 2006 saying "The American People reject the current policies and those who support them", you still believe otherwise. Have fun. What is it now, 50 Dems, 49 Republicans and an Independant? Quite the man-date ya got yourself there fargle - almost one whole percent of the vote. Bush did far better in 2004, but did you try to claim that the people had spoken then? Not all Republicans were up for reelection, Sanity. Additionally, the Democrats took out a page from the Republican playbook and targetted races they felt they could win, as opposed to every race. Add to that the fact that California moved their primaries as early as they could, and the state with one of the largest sets of electoral votes now becomes a key player as a weather vane for national elections, as opposed to getting sloppy seconds from Dumbfuckistan. There was an interesting article in the last issue of Rolling Stone which stated that Al Gore should run again. Now that he has become known on the national scene as somebody who stands up for what he believes in, and not a wooden puppet, he has developed a personality. Additionally, unlike Clinton or Obama, he never once supported the war in Iraq. Sinergy

starshineowned -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 6:15:15 AM)
quote: ....doesn't absolve Bush from the fact he lied and started everything...by everything I mean the whole Iraq-democracy-fiasco the US has to deal with.. Had Bush of out right lied on his own merit in order to Continue this war with Iraq from years ago..He'd of already been under Impeachment process. There is no evidence inwhich to preclude that this is the case. Therefore no Impeachment process. You may have your opinion that the President lied, however, I find it extremely lame and ill informed of anyone who at the very least thinks that just the President made this all powerful decision all by his lonesome. It doesn't work that way Sir, sorry. I find it even more lame that a person can out right say the President lied, when the rest of the Government can't seem to conjur up evidence in order to deal with such a accusation. I guess however, that a few persons on some forum on the wide world of Internet has all this proof to make such a claim. Imagine that. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

Sanity -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 6:16:12 AM)
Actually, nobody voted FOR Democrats. Very few people ever would. They voted AGAINST President Bush, who has been the victim of the biggest smear campaign in all of human history.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 6:22:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Actually, nobody voted FOR Democrats. Very few people ever would. They voted AGAINST President Bush, who has been the victim of the biggest smear campaign in all of human history. Ha ha ha! The man is an idiot who can't string two words together. I doubt he can string two thoughts together either. The most frightening thing in the world is to know the world's most powerful man is an idiot and a psychotic idiot at that. Dr Strangelove? Fact is stranger than fiction.

MasterKalif -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned Had Bush of out right lied on his own merit in order to Continue this war with Iraq from years ago..He'd of already been under Impeachment process. There is no evidence inwhich to preclude that this is the case. Therefore no Impeachment process. You may have your opinion that the President lied, however, I find it extremely lame and ill informed of anyone who at the very least thinks that just the President made this all powerful decision all by his lonesome. It doesn't work that way Sir, sorry. I find it even more lame that a person can out right say the President lied, when the rest of the Government can't seem to conjur up evidence in order to deal with such a accusation. I guess however, that a few persons on some forum on the wide world of Internet has all this proof to make such a claim. Imagine that. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin starshine, you make an excellent point...I do think he is to blame ultimately because he is in charge and he makes the decisions...he is after all commander-in-chief....but just as much to blame are his aides, advisors, sec. Donald Rumsfeld specially since Bush could have listened more to Colin Powell, a man who did not buy the "lets get involved in Iraq thing"...Bush was also obvlivious to reality and kept insisting well into the Iraq war that weapons of mass destructions were held by Iraq...I would have rather he said to the nation that he believed the US had interests in Iraq such as oil and that it needed to be secured for the US or that Israel their ally felt unprotected by Iraq (which I highly doubt)...that would have made more sense, if somewhat cold. I also think he is to blame for saying such ridicolous things as "imposing freedom and democracy" in Iraq, when anyone who has read up on Iraqi history and knows something about political science will tell you that democracy cannot be imposed, but rather institutions with democratic character as well as civic lessons for the citizenry to learn what their rights and obligations are under such a system...democracy cannot take hold over night as Bush implied by saying Iraq would have a democracy in 3 yrs....Iraq also has never had a true history of modern democracy as known in the US or in the west. So then, Bush is as much to blame more so than his aides and government members.

Sanity -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:27:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Actually, nobody voted FOR Democrats. Very few people ever would. They voted AGAINST President Bush, who has been the victim of the biggest smear campaign in all of human history. Ha ha ha! The man is an idiot who can't string two words together. I doubt he can string two thoughts together either. The most frightening thing in the world is to know the world's most powerful man is an idiot and a psychotic idiot at that. Dr Strangelove? Fact is stranger than fiction. Can't string two words together??? Psychotic??? Pure smear - thanks for proving my point.

meatcleaver -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:30:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Ha ha ha! The man is an idiot who can't string two words together. I doubt he can string two thoughts together either. The most frightening thing in the world is to know the world's most powerful man is an idiot and a psychotic idiot at that. Dr Strangelove? Fact is stranger than fiction. Can't string two words together??? Psychotic??? Pure smear - thanks for proving my point. I assume you have heard him talk and he doesn't appear to have a grasp on reality when he gives a press conference.

farglebargle -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:35:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Can't string two words together??? Psychotic??? Pure smear - thanks for proving my point. "The goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace."—GWB Speaking at the White House Conference on Global Literacy, New York, Sept. 18, 2006 Simple case of Subject/Verb agreement. We learned this shit in 2nd Grade. The guy is a fucking moron.

farglebargle -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:44:35 AM)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=32550 quote: The Supreme Court has defined the phrase "conspiracy to defraud the United States" as "to interfere with, impede or obstruct a lawful government function by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement "between two or more persons" to follow a course of conduct that, if completed, would constitute a crime. The agreement doesn't have to be express; most conspiracies are proved through evidence of concerted action. But government officials are expected to act in concert. So proof that they were conspiring requires a comparison of their public conduct and statements with their conduct and statements behind the scenes. A pattern of double-dealing proves a criminal conspiracy. The concept of interfering with a lawful government function is best explained by reference to two well-known cases where courts found that executive branch officials had defrauded the United States by abusing their power for personal or political reasons. One is the Watergate case, where a federal district court held that Nixon's Chief of Staff, H.R. Haldeman, and his crew had interfered with the lawful government functions of the CIA and the FBI by causing the CIA to intervene in the FBI's investigation into the burglary of Democratic Party headquarters. The other is U.S. v. North, where the court found that Reagan administration National Security Adviser John Poindexter, Poindexter's aide Oliver North, and others had interfered with Congress's lawful power to oversee foreign affairs by lying about secret arms deals during Congressional hearings into the Iran/contra scandal. Finally, "fraud" is broadly defined to include half-truths, omissions or misrepresentation; in other words, statements that are intentionally misleading, even if literally true. Fraud also includes making statements with "reckless indifference" to their truth. Conspiracies to defraud usually begin with a goal that is not in and of itself illegal. In this instance the goal was to invade Iraq. It is possible that the Bush team thought this goal was laudable and likely to succeed. It's also possible that they never formally agreed to defraud the public in order to attain it. But when they chose to overcome anticipated or actual opposition to their plan by concealing information and lying, they began a conspiracy to defraud -- because, as juries are instructed, "no amount of belief in the ultimate success of a scheme will justify baseless, false or reckless misstatements." From the fall of 2001 to at least March 2003, the following officials, and others, made hundreds of false assertions in speeches, on television, at the United Nations, to foreign leaders and to Congress: President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his Under Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. Their statements were remarkably consistent and consistently false. Even worse, these falsehoods were made against an overarching deception: that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. If Administration officials never quite said there was a link, they conveyed the message brilliantly by mentioning 9/11 and Iraq together incessantly -- just as beer commercials depict guys drinking beer with gorgeous women to imply a link between beer drinking and attractive women that is equally nonexistent. Beer commercials might be innocuous, but a deceptive ad campaign from the Oval Office is not, especially one designed to sell a war in which 2,000 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis have died, and that has cost this country more than $200 billion so far and stirred up worldwide enmity. The fifteen-month PR blitz conducted by the White House was a massive fraud designed to trick the public into accepting a goal that Bush's advisers had held even before the election. Any wonder why Federal Prosecutors who aren't Party Whores are being forced out and replaced by appointees by the Administration under little known provisions of the PATRIOT act.

starshineowned -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:51:12 AM)
While I do agree this is a extreme uphill battle as far as getting Democracy to take a foot hold Sir...I do not think anyone was able to foresee the mass intrusion of insurgents from surrounding countrys which ultimately has led to alot of the delay, and deaths, as well as extreme confusion and uncertainty amongst the religious factions who are now endeavoring and grappling to try and climb to the top of the heap. Again..the President may be ultimately seen as "in charge" however, this is only truely accurate in cases where they have power on limited issue's to override congress. Ultimately it is congress, and the feelings of the people at large who make or break something, and the president is nothing more than a figure head inwhich to point the blame or praise depending on any given outcome of such a situation. I will not ofcourse say that Bush stated that Iraq will have Democracy within 3yrs..but I personally have not heard or read that statement as such. I do however recall quite clearly that Bush made no mistake or hidden agenda to the American people that this was going to be a very long hard road, and that we should understand this and be prepared for that. Really at this point..the right or wrong, who got us there and why is backwash, and wasted time. Moving forward..if we suddenly pull out..there indeed will most likely be a bloodshed or "catastrophy" as Pelosi thinks is happening now but it will be a kind that will show her what a real catastrophy looks like. It is a sad situation all the way around. If we stay..it is going to take years of us being there to truely see some positive movement as would be the case in Any country starting from a Dictatorship going to a Democracy. If we pull out..Iraq will most certainly go into utter chaos and anarchy. If they were left alone (as in surrounding countrys staying the hell out) eventually they would right themselves even if it was to return to a new Dictorial country. Perhaps that is what we must let happen. I don't have the answer for that. Did we do what we aimed to do? I think so. Saddam is not only gone..but tried, convicted, and dead. Have we tried to restore order, and help rebuild? Yes so I do not feel guilty that the efforts are seeming to be invain. In the few years down the road what is it we are going to be looking at? Soldiers there now making some headway albeit very slow or 3yrs from now when Iran is nuke capable, and the entire world has to send troops to that region to stabilize? What do you honestly see as most likely to occur in 3-5yrs in that region Sir? Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

starshineowned -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 7:59:39 AM)
Being pushed out for whatever reason if being done in what I am gathering is your reasoning to cover up a Bush conspiracy, lie, fraud, whatever term you want to use Sir..does not and will not stop them from speaking out or information being somehow leaked out. Now if these people being ousted out of a power chair suddenly start showing up dead on the river banks...you might have a valid point that needs to be seriously looked at. Furthermore..it's going to take people on all political fronts to make something happen..so if this is the case..it's government corruption on all, and not just those Republicans. Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin

farglebargle -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 8:07:09 AM)
" Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:) On March 18, 2003, I made available to you, consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), my determination that further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, nor lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." It looks like that was a lie. The national security of the United States was never at risk from Iraq. Apparently it was well known. "I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area." How's that working out? Oh, another failure. Oh well, you've been wrong about everything so far, George. "I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. " Why are you trying to link Iraq to 9/11, George? "United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338). Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq. These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians." Well, with a few hundred thousand dead, I guess you were full of shit about this, too. " It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully." Well, since your GOALS were made up ( Iraq NEVER WAS A THREAT TO THE US ) , of course you cannot state the scope or duration. "As we continue our united efforts to disarm Iraq in pursuit of peace, stability, and security both in the Gulf region and in the United States, I look forward to our continued consultation and cooperation." Dude, they were disarmed. I guess the word of the MARINE, Scott Ritter ( Who was RIGHT ) wasn't good enough for you. "Sincerely," It is to laugh "GEORGE W. BUSH " Liar.

sleazy -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 8:49:32 AM)
So lets get this right......... Bush is a room temperature IQ sociopath or whatever labels folks want to fit? He persuaded a lot of americans to surrender habeaus corpus and other "rights" under certain circumstances He persuaded a nation to go to war half a world away and got majority support from the populace Thats just two Rest of the world appears to dislike the US, well if the majority are so dumb as to follow such an "idiot" can you really blame them? Or is Bush smarter than you give him credit for to hoodwink the nation? (damn thats gotta sting) Jeez least here we have the excuse that the incumbent has such a huge majority in the house that its easy for him to steamroller legisilation he likes through, wheras you folks, well seems that both parties have been voting for bush policies a lot of the time. PS I can already predict at least one of the possible responses to this!

farglebargle -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 8:53:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy So lets get this right......... Bush is a room temperature IQ sociopath or whatever labels folks want to fit? He persuaded a lot of americans to surrender habeaus corpus and other "rights" under certain circumstances He persuaded a nation to go to war half a world away and got majority support from the populace Thats just two Rest of the world appears to dislike the US, well if the majority are so dumb as to follow such an "idiot" can you really blame them? Or is Bush smarter than you give him credit for to hoodwink the nation? (damn thats gotta sting) Jeez least here we have the excuse that the incumbent has such a huge majority in the house that its easy for him to steamroller legisilation he likes through, wheras you folks, well seems that both parties have been voting for bush policies a lot of the time. PS I can already predict at least one of the possible responses to this! Is a conspiracy as smart as the smartest conspirator, the dumbest conspirator, or some sort of weighted average?

MasterKalif -> RE: Hillary Defends Vote For Iraq Liberation (2/1/2007 9:02:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: starshineowned While I do agree this is a extreme uphill battle as far as getting Democracy to take a foot hold Sir...I do not think anyone was able to foresee the mass intrusion of insurgents from surrounding countrys which ultimately has led to alot of the delay, and deaths, as well as extreme confusion and uncertainty amongst the religious factions who are now endeavoring and grappling to try and climb to the top of the heap. Again..the President may be ultimately seen as "in charge" however, this is only truely accurate in cases where they have power on limited issue's to override congress. Ultimately it is congress, and the feelings of the people at large who make or break something, and the president is nothing more than a figure head inwhich to point the blame or praise depending on any given outcome of such a situation. I will not ofcourse say that Bush stated that Iraq will have Democracy within 3yrs..but I personally have not heard or read that statement as such. I do however recall quite clearly that Bush made no mistake or hidden agenda to the American people that this was going to be a very long hard road, and that we should understand this and be prepared for that. Really at this point..the right or wrong, who got us there and why is backwash, and wasted time. Moving forward..if we suddenly pull out..there indeed will most likely be a bloodshed or "catastrophy" as Pelosi thinks is happening now but it will be a kind that will show her what a real catastrophy looks like. It is a sad situation all the way around. If we stay..it is going to take years of us being there to truely see some positive movement as would be the case in Any country starting from a Dictatorship going to a Democracy. If we pull out..Iraq will most certainly go into utter chaos and anarchy. If they were left alone (as in surrounding countrys staying the hell out) eventually they would right themselves even if it was to return to a new Dictorial country. Perhaps that is what we must let happen. I don't have the answer for that. Did we do what we aimed to do? I think so. Saddam is not only gone..but tried, convicted, and dead. Have we tried to restore order, and help rebuild? Yes so I do not feel guilty that the efforts are seeming to be invain. In the few years down the road what is it we are going to be looking at? Soldiers there now making some headway albeit very slow or 3yrs from now when Iran is nuke capable, and the entire world has to send troops to that region to stabilize? What do you honestly see as most likely to occur in 3-5yrs in that region Sir? Well Wishes starshine Happy slave of Master Delvin starshineowned...more than an uphill battle the way things have been going on now, I see it as a very unlikely option...if a sham democracy even took hold it would be very volatile and unstable, weak government. This is because the institutions, checks and balances are not present as they are in solid democracies. While no one was able to exactly forsee the death and destruction that ocurred, knowing that a dictatorship that permeated everything in daily life, as well as a well-oiled-government machine that was ruling with absolute power for more than 20 years...when you topple a situation like that, there will be chaos...as well as for the fact that dictatorships maintain order by force...it was known that the Kurds in northern Iraq wanted autonomy or outright independence and that a removal of Saddam would mean a power vacuum. It is also true that Iran would have tried to influence the region and that by taking out Saddam, Iran would be reinforced as a power in the region. So the disaster was forseeable, even to political science students...it was talked about the differences among shiites and sunnis before the war even. Granted, no one could tell exactly how bad it would be, but there were red flags everywhere that it was an unwise idea from the start. Again....the president is always in charge and the US system is a presidentialist system, while congress can check his power or oppose his plans...however it was "Dubya" who asked congress to declare war, it was not congress' idea and then a shy Bush who supported it....hence it is a presidentialist system. Needless to say, the silly democrats did nothing to stop him and jumped in the victory chariot with him, lest they be seen as "unpatriotic". The press, the government spokesmen, together with the convulsed fear and anger of 9/11 led for the people to be pliable and accepting of this war. In short he is to blame because he did everything to push for war, did it unilaterally (very consciously too) without his allies, and despite warnings from Colin Powell (inside the administration) and from friendly countries (outside of his administration), he chose to ignore those signals and went ahead, made his very shallow case for war...and I am afraid it was not bought outside of the US. I clearly recall Bush stating initially that democracy in Iraq could be established in three years, and then the US military would go home, a short quick victory, which would ocurr from superior technology and forces....however this backfired as it was known it would since no democracy can take hold on such short time, with people who don't even understand what democracy is, less know how one works. But you are right, what is in the past is in the past, its just that it is such a mess, and fairly predictable too. This is however where I agree with you....the US cannot pull out now, it would make things worse...at the very least the US should abandon its lofty ideas of democracy imposed, and just vie for a friendly pro-western dictatorship, maybe bring back the former monarchy which was overthrown in 1958...but as of right now I would hate it if the US pulled out as it would mean all those american deaths, Iraqi suffering and death in this violent period were for nothing. However I do not think the US has remotely accomplished what it set to do...it has destabilized the region, has created anarchy and chaos in Iraq....to the point that neighboring countries are intervening as a security situation by their borders....any country would. Another mistake from Bush and the powers that be....you cannot rebuild if there is a semi civil war going on, and therefore the rebuilding becomes a showpiece to pretend that the US is doing good things...first security and order must be restored at all costs, secondly rebuilding, thirdly a soung government. A fiasco all around...I hope this administration learns and future ones as well that regime change means chaos and dragging down in foreign wars that make no sense. The US has certainly strayed from the original path of the founding fathers. edited to add: In terms of Iran becoming a nuclear power....based on the precedents of other new nuclear power members...there will be a lot of complaining and gnashing of teeth, but no one will do anything, and the US government will not be so obvlivious and force their disarmament or invade Iran, because of the known consecuences...that is what will happen, and one of the reasons the US will not attack Iran now.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.09375