Democrats on Iraq: Bush lied

[tojo]

The debates are enough reason alone to hate the war.

[Guest Rick777]

exactly

[PadreSantiago]

[quote name='T-Bone' date='Nov 17 2005, 02:48 PM'][sarcasm]
I'm so glad that GOD is posting on this forum.  Why don't you enlighten us further.
[/sarcasm]

You have no right to judge Bush!  You do not know what is in his heart.
[right][snapback]793083[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yes I do, oil

[PadreSantiago]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 17 2005, 04:09 PM']You know what would be nice?  (And I'm not holding my breath on this one)

It would be nice to have a president who can admit that he made some mistakes about the war.

He didn't send enough troops
He didn't have an exit strategy
He didn't have the proper information

And just own up.  Instead he and Cheney are trying to spin this off on to the democrats.
[right][snapback]793174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yeah Bush can't admit when he made a mistake. That alone is enough for me to never support him.

[PadreSantiago]

Bush's approval rating right now is at 34%!

"Mr. Bush's current ratings don't compare favorably with those of three of the last four two-term presidents at a comparable time in their fifth year in office. In November or October of their fifth year, Presidents Johnson (67%), Reagan (66%) and Clinton (58%) all enjoyed the support of majorities, while President Nixon (29%) was less popular than Mr. Bush is now."

Wow only Nixon was less popular than bush. But don't worry Dubya you still got till 2008 to prove to the american public you are the worst president in the history of the united states of america.

Cheney is at 30%. Yeah that's right he doesn't even have the approval of a third of this country.

and here's a quote I want everyone to read by a mr abraham lincoln (who mightva been gay! How ya like him now?)

"Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed." - Abraham Lincoln, 1858

I wonder what God is saying to George Bush now? "Have another shot of Jim Beam, dude."

Edited November 18, 2005 by PadreSantiago

[Nathan]

The wise American public voted him in again last year. That's all the approval Bush needs to do his job.

Harry Truman's approval rating was worse than Bush's is now when he left office.

[StatingTheObvious]

I see you brainiacs have found something else to be stupid about.
Bush is so stupid he can't talk - Yet he went to Yale and got better grades then Kerry.

We gave Saddaam WMD - Yeah. Right. How stupid is that claim? After the 1st Gulf War, after Saddaam gassed the Kurds, he was supposed to comply with the UN's weapons inspectors. Saddaam never complied and his people were starving to death. And wasn't it French planes they found hidden?

He didn't send enough troops - What idiodcy is this? How many more are/were needed? Did we need to take over the entire country in 11 days instead of 21?

He didn't have an exit strategy - He does have one. Go in, destroy their army. Allow the Iraqi's to vote and elect their own government. Stay until they get things going. Leave. What part are we missing?

He didn't have the proper information - Like what else was needed and was reasonable to obtain. Clue me in.

This ware is going to be too long - Any idea how long wars normally go? Any clue on how long we were in Japan after they gave up? Any idea how long WW2 was? How about Viet-Nam or Korea? How long did the last Iraq/Iran go on?

Bush can't admit his mistake - No. He won't agree to your silly ramblings.

[PadreSantiago]

[img]http://www.humorgazette.com/images/pix-rummy-saddam.jpg[/img]

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 17 2005, 07:56 PM']I see you brainiacs have found something else to be stupid about.
Bush is so stupid he can't talk - Yet he went to Yale and got better grades then Kerry.

We gave Saddaam WMD - Yeah.  Right.  How stupid is that claim?  After the 1st Gulf War, after Saddaam gassed the Kurds, he was supposed to comply with the UN's weapons inspectors.  Saddaam never complied and his people were starving to death.  And wasn't it French planes they found hidden?

He didn't send enough troops - What idiodcy is this?  How many more are/were needed?  Did we need to take over the entire country in 11 days instead of 21?

He didn't have an exit strategy - He does have one.  Go in, destroy their army.  Allow the Iraqi's to vote and elect their own government.  Stay until they get things going.  Leave.  What part are we missing?

He didn't have the proper information -  Like what else was needed and was reasonable to obtain.  Clue me in.

This ware is going to be too long -  Any idea how long wars normally go?  Any clue on how long we were in Japan after they gave up?  Any idea how long WW2 was?  How about Viet-Nam or Korea?  How long did the last Iraq/Iran go on?

Bush can't admit his mistake - No.  He won't agree to your silly ramblings.
[right][snapback]793546[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Ladies and Gentlemen, introducing the one person who actually bought the "Mission accomplished" speech.

[PadreSantiago]

^ =)

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 17 2005, 06:56 PM']I see you brainiacs have found something else to be stupid about.
Bush is so stupid he can't talk - Yet he went to Yale and got better grades then Kerry.

[b]We gave Saddaam WMD - Yeah.  Right.  How stupid is that claim?  After the 1st Gulf War, after Saddaam gassed the Kurds, he was supposed to comply with the UN's weapons inspectors.  Saddaam never complied and his people were starving to death.  And wasn't it French planes they found hidden?[/b]
He didn't send enough troops - What idiodcy is this?  How many more are/were needed?  Did we need to take over the entire country in 11 days instead of 21?

He didn't have an exit strategy - He does have one.  Go in, destroy their army.  Allow the Iraqi's to vote and elect their own government.  Stay until they get things going.  Leave.  What part are we missing?

He didn't have the proper information -  Like what else was needed and was reasonable to obtain.  Clue me in.

This ware is going to be too long -  Any idea how long wars normally go?  Any clue on how long we were in Japan after they gave up?  Any idea how long WW2 was?  How about Viet-Nam or Korea?  How long did the last Iraq/Iran go on?

Bush can't admit his mistake - No.  He won't agree to your silly ramblings.
[right][snapback]793546[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually, it was the Reagan Administration that gave Saddam chemical weapons. It is not a stupid claim. [u][i][b] It is FACT![/b][/i][/u]

Wake up and smell the napalm.


--Besides, my point was that we were justified in beleiving someone we gave something to had it in thier possesion.

[toledo_jesus]

hooray, another chance for me to be unpopular. I got a B+ on this paper, it explains some of the views on America's [i]Freedom of Action[/i], or how free America is to do what it feels is in its best interests. Basically, we must remember that America is the unparalleled military force of the world. We spend more on defense than the next 20 countries combined. In a conventional sense, we cannot be beaten. However, the threat to our political agenda comes not from military power but from international legitimacy. Do we have the freedom to exercise our power in a way we choose, or are we beholden to the rest of the world. You may divide this debate into two camps, with some moderates in the middle. There are the unilateralists who advocate America's supremacy and complete freedom of action and the multilateralists who emphasize collective security and globalization. Which one do you agree with? No critiquing the paper . It has been abridged.

*************************************************************************************

America currently enjoys the primacy of place on the international stage. No other nation in history has been in the position the U.S. currently finds itself. This has brought not only new opportunity but also added responsibility and a good amount of confusion. Before 2001 the U.S. seemed to take a much more multilateral approach in international affairs. After September 11th the scene changed dramatically. There are various schools of thought that give differing opinions on whether the actions taken by the Bush administration have been the most prudent or successful. We will discuss the changing role of major war, and its decline in importance. In addition we will address the topic of nuclear weapons and their continued, albeit changed, importance.
The first of the views we will discuss is that of Charles Krauthammer. Building on a previous essay, Krauthammer reaffirms his belief that in the post Soviet world power was concentrated solely in the U.S. rather than spread out among the various other nations. Essentially, the system went from one of bipolarity to unipolarity. The United States is in a unique position in history. Rather than uniting to oppose the obvious hegemon, the rest of the great powers are allies. With no serious challengers immediately present, the U.S. enjoys unmatched primacy in the military, economic, diplomatic and cultural aspects. Quite simply, America is in a position to do whatever it wants.
The only threats to the United States, Krauthammer argues, are those rogue states wielding weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, these states are the most dangerous threat to the U.S. Not only would coordinated attacks using WMD (nuclear, biological or chemical) be devastating on an order not seen on September 11th, but they might also result in the destruction of American hegemony and perhaps the functioning of American society. It is therefore the most urgent task to protect America from these weapons. September 11th highlighted that WMD-armed enemies could be both undeterrable and potentially undetectable. To deal effectively with an alliance of rogue states and these undeterrables requires a new strategic doctrine.
This new doctrine has been made obvious to the world in the past few years. The U.S. will not discriminate between terrorists and those who harbor them, and in some cases a preemptive attack is necessary to curb WMD development. With Iraq we also have regime change as an option. While the rest of the world grumbles and casts furtive glances our way, they can’t challenge the supremacy of the U.S. These doctrines taken together constitute an extraordinary statement of American freedom of action and reaffirm the sense of American unilateralism. There is no real competition with the U.S. on the military front. The example of the swift defeat of Iraq in 1991 demonstrated American conventional military strength. Afghanistan in 2001 did much the same. America should, according to Krauthammer, be the one who determines where and when it uses its military forces, and also for what. As Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says, “the mission determines the coalition.” Unilateralism strengthens American freedom of action, and does much to prevent the outbreak of major war on the scale of Korea or World War II. It also could conceivably be grounds for use of WMD by America, though Krauthammer would argue that responsibility and benignity preclude that option.
Francis Fukuyama takes a different tack. He finds that Krauthammer’s argument paints neo-conservatism as indistinguishable from realism, while being unrealistic about the capabilities of the U.S. and its ability to control events in the world. Fukuyama sees three basic problems with Krauthammer’s position, and these affect America’s freedom of action. First, Americans have never been comfortable with strict realism and the moral compromises it entails. Second, our track record as far as nation building is not overly successful. Germany and Japan were re-legitimized, not rebuilt. Third, foreign policy requires international legitimacy, and unilateral action will be hard-pressed to obtain that.
Fukuyama believes that we have hurt our international legitimacy by ignoring or misinterpreting the European concerns about the wisdom of attacking Saddam’s Iraq. He feels that the neoconservative dismissal of legitimacy is a tad premature. Indeed, it has been found that the reasons we went to war in Iraq were flawed, and the European counsel for caution should have probably been given more heed. Fukuyama essentially argues that the U.S. cannot do it all alone, and actually needs international legitimacy if not international support. He does not feel Al Qaeda is a threat to the continuation of the state, but he thinks they would like to be.
According to Fukuyama, our freedom of action may not be impeded but the consequences to the unwise exercise of our power are not trifling matters. While America is the most powerful nation on the planet, it cannot afford to be seen as an unjust aggressor even if its actions serve the global interest. Therefore, America would only become involved in major wars if it served the interests of the international community.
G. John Ikenberry is rather different in his approach. He labels neoconservatives such as Krauthammer “fundamentalists”. There are nine reasons why he believes neoconservative measures fail. Firstly, American grand strategy for the war in Iraq has not been realized and does not appear to have a chance of being realized. Second, the American people do not want to pay the material cost of the war. This will force America back into multilateral action. Third, Ikenberry believes the neoconservatives have misread American power. It is vulnerable economically and politically, and especially when it comes to fighting terrorism it will need its allies. Fourth, he agrees with Fukuyama that legitimacy is a critical component to success. It is not a sign of weakness. Fifth, relying on fear of American power is not conducive to successful global leadership. In fact it may backfire and create more problems. Sixth, multilateralism does not diminish but is in fact a tool of American power. Legitimacy is seen as more important that military effectiveness. Seventh, Ikenberry contends that it was not unilateral action on the part of America that won the Cold War, but rather a united West. It was not possible to sustain a hard-line policy, and so America didn’t. Eighth, there is no stable grand vision of order for the world. Not every great power is included in the U.S. world order. Finally, Ikenberry says that by the actions of the current administration a goodly amount of the people’s trust has been squandered. This will make it more difficult for an American president to act decisively with the support of the American people, a dangerous proposition in this day and age.
These reasons encapsulate the forces Ikenberry believes work against America’s freedom of action. By stressing unilateralism, America actually gives up some of its flexibility and options for success. The example of Kosovo is that America had international legitimacy when it went through NATO, and so the operation was deemed successful. Again it appears that, in theory, major wars on the order of World War II are no longer as big a threat because of international cooperation. America’s freedom to use WMD would necessarily be contingent on international approval.
In examining these contrasting views we must take a position on who has hit the closest to the mark. While attractive, Krauthammer’s view is perhaps a little too extreme and not nearly sensitive enough to foreign irritation at our hegemonic status. It also does not adequately treat the fact that Al Qaeda and other terrorists no longer require state sponsorship to operate, somewhat nullifying the idea that only rogue states are the problem. Conversely, Ikenberry’s view is perhaps overly reliant on international action, which lends itself to bureaucratic backlog and stalled action. This is indefensible in today’s world with today’s threats. I rather believe that Fukuyama’s suggestion regarding institution building is reasonable and has a good chance of success. Fukuyama maintains that a system of regional institutions such as the Community of Democracies would help to add legitimacy to American endeavors. This has the ring of truth to it, and would provide an opportunity for less ponderous multilateral action while maintaining a focus on the goals of the War on Terror.

[jasJis]

Super job, toledo. It's a great paper and fairly brings out different opinions and judgements with equal weight. I read the paper twice. I would say that the reality would be a mixture of all three perspectives.

For example, while international legitimacy is important to the psyche of the American public, so is an impediment to American Leaders in our democracy, we must be cautioned that Europe's opinons must be evaluated with the perspective of history. It is Europe that has the history of failed imperialism and failed colonialism. It's their past that haunts them. It's also their resentment of the US's superiorty that lends a transfer of their history to the US. We don't have the same history as France and England in India, South East Asia, and Africa. The first lesson you youngsters should remember is Viet Nam and France's failures and misguided colonial policies that set it off as recently as the '50's.

There's lots of other points, but this is good reading for anyone with opinions to get the idea that differing opinons may be have merit as well.

Edited November 18, 2005 by jasJis

[Guest T-Bone]

toledo--

That is the most well-thought out post in this thread.

[toledo_jesus]

well thanks...I finished it 20 minutes before it was due

I really liked Krauthammer, but I think even he knows that he is taking the extreme position. Optimally, I suppose I'd like to see someone a bit more moderate, but more decisive than Fukuyama. Whether that would work or not...meh.

We're going to be in Iraq for a long time, and there's no bones about it. If we leave now, Iraq is doomed and we lose security and face. Guys, it's going to take at least one generation to fix this problem. This is a war on attitudes and the only way to win it is to change the attitudes of the Middle Easterners. If that takes a generation, then that's what it takes.

The thing about the multilateral approaches is that they really have more of a focus on long-term goals. This is not always attractive to the impatient American, but then neither is a prolonged occupation. We could cut our time there if we could form a regional institution that helped achieve stability in the region.