| Author | Message | ||
     cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3199 Registered: 8-2003 |
In Lebanon, the edict against public demonstrations failed to stop 10,000 anti-Syria protesters. This led to the Lebanese government's resignation today. Just one more consequence of the Iraq War, and something that is hard to swallow for many. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1615 Registered: 1-2003  |
This is really amazing. If things keep going as they are, GWB will be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents in US history. His vision is extraordinary. Freedom is spreading through the middle east. Seriously, all of you Bush haters, if 4 years ago someone told you that There would be free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq and Ukraine and Lebanon, and Egypt and the Palestinian territories... and that Libya would give up its WMD plans (and that there would be prescription coverage for seniors, a incredibly strong economy) You'd have thought we were crazy. In fact you DID think we were crazy for even hinting that this would happen. Someone better start making room on Mt. Rushmore. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5661 Registered: 1-2003  |
In time, we might, in fact, see that we owe Bush credit for opening the floodgates. But as I said, that will take time. But that would be the result of the war. It was not the plan, nor was it the proposal. So I give him no credit for the vision. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1617 Registered: 1-2003 |
It was not the plan, nor was it the proposal. Yes it was Tom, you just chose not to listen. Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz and loads of other Administration officials said this over and over in countless Op-Eds long before the Iraq war. Bush said it in interviews and the few press conferences he gave. It was roundly ignored in favor of WMD furor. Spreading Democracy to eliminate terror was Bush's policy all along. To say otherwise is either selective memory or an outright lie. Long before we invaded Iraq, spreading democracy and freedom was the Bush modus operendi. It was met with incredulousness from the left. "how can he expect Arabs to want freedom" and "there is no reason to believe that just having one democracy will make others form" were the cries from the left. So, yes, the Iraqi threat had to seem more "imminent" so the intelectual lightweights on the left could grasp the concept. They couldn't grasp the concept of "regime change"... They had Al Quaeda on the brain (because all of the evidence of Saddam supporting virtually ALL islamic terror groups didn't matter unless there was a picture of Saddam blowing Usama). How can you say this wasn't the plan? It is exactly the plan, and the plan is executing perfectly. Time sure will tell. Get Mt. Rushmore ready. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1619 Registered: 1-2003 |
Here are some links dating back to 2002 where Bush and the administration are talking about spreading democracy. http://www.ned.org/events/anniversary/oct1603-Bush.html http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/2003/26055.htm http://artcontext.org/act/02/rfc-bush-policy/ Finally, the United States will use this moment of opportunity to extend the benefits of freedom across the globe. We will actively work to bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets, and free trade to every corner of the world... Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human dignity; the birthright of every person -- in every civilization. Throughout history, freedom has been threatened by war and terror; it has been challenged by the clashing wills of powerful states and the evil designs of tyrants; and it has been tested by widespread poverty and disease. Today, humanity holds in its hands the opportunity to further freedom's triumph over all these foes. The United States welcomes our responsibility to lead in this great mission. - President Bush, West Point, New York, June 1, 2002 There is lots more, but I don't have the time to google. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 503 Registered: 6-2004  |
of course it was a reason. there were 27 different reasons given for the invasion: http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5664 Registered: 1-2003 |
I stand corrected. And I hope you didn't really think I would make an outright lie. I still find it distasteful to start a war to spread peace. Time will tell if this works. And even if it does, it could make others feel justified in doing the same, attributing unrealistic motives to their own actions. In essense, I don't feel the ends justify the means, even when the ends are good. Your mentions of Mt. Rushmore give me some good chuckles, though. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1621 Registered: 1-2003 |
Sorry, I wasn't trying to say YOU were lying. And we didn't start a war to spread peace. We started a war to remove a dangerous dictator and free a people... because doing so would eventually change the face of the middle east (where the terrorists are from) and make us safer. Rushmore! Rushmore! Rushmore!!!! | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 3376 Registered: 5-2001  |
"We started a war to remove a dangerous dictator" (who had weapons of mass destruction to use against the US) "and free a people"(free from what? is the war over?) | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5665 Registered: 1-2003 |
In the discussion leading up to the Iraqi war, I learned that it is against international law to have a war for the purpose of removing a leader. So they managed to make it a byproduct. I'm happy with the byproduct, but I will not stand behind it as a reason for the war. If one country can declare another country's leader as evil, then anyone can start a war with the purpose of "regime change". I don't want that, and you shouldn't, either. | ||
| Mustt_mustt Citizen Username: Mustt_mustt Post Number: 291 Registered: 8-2003 |
Again, it is in the vital interests of Bush and his criminal cohorts to spread "their" versions of democracy, freedom, free market and development. Let's take a look at the other side of the picture: The US bankrolls of the economies of Israel and Egypt, the former functioning as a "democracy" with WMDs that has a huge section of its population under occupation and the latter,which has an authoritarian leader who has always received the blessings of the US and is only now indulging in gesture politics for promoting "democracy," Egyptian style. The same is the case with Saudi Arabia (the links between the Houses of Saud and Bush have been well-documented by now) and Pakistan. Spreading Bush's style of "freedom and democracy" does not mean that the rest of the folks in the world will only have to scratch their skins and voila! find that they are all Americans, after all. That is the vision of these frickin' neocons like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld whose basic philosophy is to deny and disslove competition in the realms of space, military and economic might, even as they are harping on "freedom and democracy" and the dangers of terrorism, the last one of which, in a self-fulfilling prophetic moment, they actually created in Iraq. They launched a war against a country, not of an altruistic desire that recognizes freedom as a basic human right, but as an ulterior motive to radically re-shape the geo-political landscape of the middle east...that they were always already "freedom loving, free wheeling free marketers and developmentalists!" | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3200 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, I look forward to your protests at the eventual creation of an independent state of Kosovo under UN auspices. ffof -- so the US didn't free the Marsh Arabs and Shia populations from Saddam? Would you deliver them back to the pre-war state of freedom they enjoyed under Saddam? And mustt_mustt -- you contradict yourself by saying Bush and Co. are spreading "their" version of democracy and allowing that Egypt and Pakistan are creating their own versions of democracy, as Iraq is doing and Lebanon seems on the verge of doing. France has their version of freedom too, and it's not entirely hospitable to US interests. Honestly, the contortions those who oppose Bush put themselves into when faced with good news is remarkable to behold. Friedman was right on Meet the Press when he said for Democrats to oppose all that's going right in the Middle East for partisan purposes is as dumb as the day is long. | ||
| Montagnard Citizen Username: Montagnard Post Number: 1445 Registered: 6-2003  |
Almost over? Full story on cnn.com. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5668 Registered: 1-2003 |
cjc, please don't put words in my mouth. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3203 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, I didn't. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1622 Registered: 1-2003 |
Friedman was right on Meet the Press when he said for Democrats to oppose all that's going right in the Middle East for partisan purposes is as dumb as the day is long. My people have a saying for this... Ma Nishtana Halila Hazeh? or Why is this night different from any other nights? In this case, the answer is, "it isn't" | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 248 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael and CJC: President Bush deserves condemnation, not praise, for his war and occupation of Iraq. He is responsible for the deaths of just under 1,500 Americans and the serious injuries of nearly 6,000 Americans. He is responsible for the deaths of at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians. Bush is responsible for unleashing a level of carnage in Iraq that the CIA recognizes has become a major breeding ground for terrorists. And we are now told that some of these terrorists, spawned by the Bush war and occupation, are turning their sights on the United States. Nearly $160 billion has already been wasted on the illegal war on Iraq and the amount authorized will soon reach $300 billion. Imagine what we could have done with a rational use of those funds. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that if the Iraq war and occupation policy continues for 10 years (not unrealistic if the Bush agenda survives) the cost to the country will reach $1.4 trillion, and in a best-case scenario will reach "only" $1 trillion. It is true that the election on January 30th could become the embryo of a democratic process in Iraq. But democracy in Iraq can only happen if and when the Bush administration commits to end our occupation and agrees on an exit timetable, which means it must forego its plans to privatize and turn Iraqi oil over to US companies. The US should set a timetable for withdrawal and turn over the transition for Iraqi sovereignty to the United Nations, with the introduction of interim UN peacekeeping forces, as US forces withdraw. And this needs to be coordinated with Arab countries in the region. The above steps are the essence of a plan proposed by Sen. Kennedy in a speech at Johns Hopkins University on January 27th. Kennedy's proposed timetable to reduce US force levels is supported by 60% of the US public, according to February 18th Wall Street Journal/NBC poll. The Bush administration refuses to endorse a timetable for troop withdrawal because it plans a permanent occupation, supported by the ongoing construction of more than 10 permanent military bases in Iraq. If democracy were its real objective, the administration would be eager to turn over the transition to the United Nations. This would remove the obvious indications of US intentions to dominate Iraq along the lines that Syria dominates Lebanon -- which has had a "democracy" for many years. I expect that Scott Ritter will shed much light on many of these issues tonight at Maplewood Memorial Library. If you plan to come, I suggest you try to arrive by 7:00. We are going to be on a very tight timetable. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1624 Registered: 1-2003 |
Paul, You have moved from Rhetoric to outright lies. The WSJ poll asked a vague question of whether there should be a schedule for troop withdrawl. 60% say yes, but most of those (75% about) say the timetable should be based on milestones reached by the Iraqi government and NOT arbitrary dates as Kennedy wants. The WSJ did NOT ask about support for Kennedy, so implying it did is a flat out lie. I don't remember where but somewhere a survey showed support for Kennedy's proposal at under 20%. I'll find the link later. The last thing we should do is give ANY control over ANYTHING to the UN. Open your eyes man. The world is changing for the better. People are being freed from oppression, Tyrannies are crumbling. This is all thanks to George W. Bush. History will show him as a visionary who freed the world from tyranny and eliminated terror. Really, you need to accept reality. Bush is doing what the UN has talked about for years but has been far too impotent and corrupt to do. He is bringing human rights and freedom to the Middle East. This is a good thing. No, its a GREAT thing. All you can do is whine and complain, and scream for the US to give up its successful course for one that is a proven failure (the UN, you always make me laugh with that one). Really Paul, I'm beginning to get worried about you. When they do put GWB on Mt. Rushmore, or some monument as big or bigger (I'm sure President Rice will push for it) I'm afraid that you, Rob Livingston, Must, Mont, and a few others will feel the need to commit a mass suicide in protest. Please, get help before it comes to that, and maybe in 10 years when you vacation in a free and stable Beirut you'll look back on your youthful mistakes of the early 2000's. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1626 Registered: 1-2003 |
Adapted from http://vodkapundit.com/archives/007529.php Sure, Lebanon has been under Syria's boot for a quarter century, so it's just coincidence that the locals are demanding freedom at the same time Iraqis are getting theirs. Sure, Saudis have never voted ever, so it's just coincidence that they had their first-ever, semi-free, all-male elections around the same time Iraqis got theirs. Sure, Egyptians haven't been promised a free election since the Brits left (and before the Brits even arrived), so it's just coincidence that they're getting promised one right after the Iraqis got theirs. Sure, Syrians have never had free elections and aren't about to get any, but it's still just coincidence that they're facing an uprising of popular will right after Iraqis expressed their popular will. Maybe, in the world of Paul Surovell, that's all just circumstantial evidence. But juries have convicted guilty men on far less. Smile, Paul — we're winning the damn war. Why can't you admit, just once, that the guy in charge is doing an OK job? | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 923 Registered: 7-2004 |
Yes, Janay, you can tell your grandkids that you believed so strongly in Bush's cause, was so absolutely convinced that the president's war was the right thing to do, that you watched it all unfold in hi-def. |
