| Author | Message | ||
     Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1628 Registered: 1-2003  |
I'm recording it for them. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4378 Registered: 10-1999  |
"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." "The locals", as you put it, have been demanding freedom from Syria for years. Former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who was killed recently in a car bombing, was active in opposition to the Syrian-controlled government. He spent his fortune and years of his life to rebuild Beirut after the ravages of civil war in that country. His assasination galvanized the opposition as never before. Frankly, it's a little insulting to the late Mr. Hariri, and to the other leaders of the opposition in Lebanon, for the right-wing pundits to suggest that they were sitting around waiting to be inspired by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1629 Registered: 1-2003 |
Nohero, Hariri was far more than complacent with the Syrian occupation for decades. He became "oposition" very recently when he resigned as prime minister when Syria demanded an extension of term for the president. This was just a year or two ago. The locas lebanese have hated Syria for years, as the Iraqis hated Saddam... but they couldn't do anythng about it. Now they can. Here is a quote, not from a right wing pundit, but a Lebanese leader, Walid Jumblatt: "It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45575-2005Feb22.html | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 924 Registered: 7-2004 |
Janay: you keep posting the same quote over and over. Surely there is someone else in the area who feels the same way as Jumblatt. Anyway, this guy Jumblatt is an opportunist, willing to jump sides at the drop of the hat depending on the political climate of the minute. And the Lebanese people started demanding freedom from Syria back when Bush was still flipping the switch on as many Texan prisoners as time would allow... | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 249 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael, I don't think anyone has said we're "winning the war" -- except for you. We're hearing about long-term US military involvement. That means we plan to occupy Iraq for many years. The problem with the war is its premise. And I don't means WMDs because that was always a PR scare tactic to win public support to initiate a war against a country that was not a threat to us. The premise of the war is that -- per Project for the New American Century -- that the United States should use its military power (as opposed to military potential) to further US geopolitical-economic interests abroad. "Democracy" in this context is little different than the "democracy" that Syria allowed in Lebanon. "Democracy" in Iraq is thus far a bloodbath. And the best way to salvage the potential that exists, is for the US to turn over the process to the UN. Because as long as we occupy, the bloodbath is likely to continue. If Bush agrees to leave and turn the transition to sovereignty to the international community (the United Nations) I will be the first to offer my praise and support. Regarding your comments on the Wall Street Journal/NBC poll -- you need to take another look at what I wrote and you will see that there is no (rational) basis for your use of the term "lies." Unless you have your own personal definition of the term. Here's the WSJ/NBC article and poll questions that I referred to:
| ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1631 Registered: 1-2003 |
So Paul, Perhaps I'm missing it, but where does that poll show that, to quote YOU "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. " That is a direct quote of your post, and is a total lie. The closest you can come is this question 28. Which of the following should be the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq going forward? 26% - A: Publicly set a timetable for drawing down U.S. troops as soon as possible and turn over security and rebuilding of the country to the new Iraqi government. 34% - B: Privately set a timetable with the Iraqi government and let them know the deadline for when U.S. troops will be reduced. 17% - C: Set no timetable and keep U.S. troops in Iraq for as long as it takes to significantly reduce the terrorist threat in the country. 21% - D: Keep U.S. troops in Iraq until the country has been rebuilt, the government is stabilized, and U.S. troops have significantly reduced the terrorist threat in the country. And only if you add both A and B responses. When you should really see that only 26% really support a Kennedy like solution. So I guess you'd be happy if Bush came out and said that we have talked with the new Iraqi government and have privately discussed a timetable for troop withdrawl based on Iraq government abilities and security milestones. The deatils of which will NOT be made public. Saying that based on this poll, Kennedy's proposed timetable to reduce US force levels is supported by 60% of the US public is an outright lie. | ||
| Paul Surovell Supporter Username: Paulsurovell Post Number: 250 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael, Here's what the WSJ says about the poll:
That's what Kennedy advocates. Do you think that the WSJ is lying? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5678 Registered: 1-2003  |
Michael, so you're saying that whatever democratic process we've started, it was worth all the loss of lives and severe physical and psychological injuries and destruction of property. Am I reading you right? See, I could give you the benefit of the doubt, for a minute, that democracy will flourish. But I also have a balance sheet here, with the costs Paul lists above. I think the costs are too high for the result. And now I'm going to take away the benefit of the doubt, because democracy's flourish isn't proven yet. So it's a rather blind investment, at best. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 4379 Registered: 10-1999 |
A recently assassinated Lebanese opposition figure doesn't fit the story line, that every good thing comes from President Bush. So, the word apparently comes down that he has to be denigrated by the President's supporters. Walid Jumblatt, on the other hand, gives a quote that fits the story line, so other things about him can now be ignored, apparently. An excerpt from David Horowitz' magazine, "Front Page" (not exactly a "lefty" publication), from last December: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16367 | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 7774 Registered: 5-2001 |
How do you know if there is or isn't a private timetable? If it appears in the Times, or the WSJ for that matter, it isn't "private".  The big political test will be if the Iraqis can come up with a workable constitution and have a real democratic election free from terror threats at the end of the year, with winners and losers who don't start digging the Ak-47s out from under the woodpile. As I have said before, the first election is easy, especially in one where there were no real winners (rulers) and losers (ruled) like the one in Iraq. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3204 Registered: 8-2003 |
What's the UN going to do to stop the "bloodbath" you say exists over Iraq? The same as it's doing in Haiti? In the Balkans? Maybe they can rape them into peace as they are in the Congo. Kennedy isn't interested in democracy over in Iraq. He wouldn't have gone in to save those people before, and he'd just as soon leave and toss the Iraqis overboard as well. He's so wacky even Hillary thinks his timetable and signalling of a pull-out is wrong. Not even the Iraqis think the US should begin leaving, or preparing to leave. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 183 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lebanon’s uprising was in direct response Hariri’s death and what they witnessed in Ukraine. The Saudi elections should be in quotations. Women weren’t allowed to vote and the men were only allowed to vote for municipal councils, which hold very little real power. And let’s not forget that they could only vote for half of the seats. The other half are still appointed by the Saudi rulers. This election was for show. If you think the House of Saud is ceding power, you are crazy. It’s also just a coincidence that, in Egypt, Mubarak’s would-be main rival was jailed on trumped-up charges a month before making this announcement. And you forgot to mention that parliament, which is dominated by Mubarak’s party, must approve any opposition candidate. All of that said, the optimist in me is cautious but hopeful. The realist in me considers most of these acts as being for show. | ||
| akb Citizen Username: Akb Post Number: 276 Registered: 12-2001 |
cjc, this "Maybe they can rape them into peace as they are in the Congo" is ridiculous. UN Peacekeepers (who work for their own national militaries) who acted illegally are being investigated and will be prosecuted. They do not represent UN policy any more than the Abu Ghraib abusers reflect on the entire US. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 5679 Registered: 1-2003 |
dave23, I read an essay -- I wish I could remember where -- that said democracy takes a stronger hold when built from the ground up, rather than from the top down. So local elections are a great place to start. So is freedom of the local press. Once people get accustomed to that, they won't give it up. Not that I am making ANY bets on Saudi Arabia's future. But I would have preferred the US to plant democracy that way than by force at the top. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1632 Registered: 1-2003 |
Michael, so you're saying that whatever democratic process we've started, it was worth all the loss of lives and severe physical and psychological injuries and destruction of property. Am I reading you right? Yes, you are. And it will be worth far more. So you're saying 1500 deaths of our troops to free millions and set in motion democracy and freedom (and in turn peace eventually) in the entire middle east isn't worth it. Am I reading you right? So what costs WOULDN'T be too high? | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 184 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom, I imagine you are right, but the Saudi kingdom is not going to allow real elections any time soon. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 927 Registered: 7-2004 |
Michael Janay: "Spreading Democracy to eliminate terror was Bush's policy all along. To say otherwise is either selective memory or an outright lie." "We are greatly concerned about any possible linkup between terrorists and regimes that have or seek weapons of mass destruction...In the case of Saddam Hussein, we've got a dictator who is clearly pursuing and already possesses some of these weapons.. A regime that hates America and everything we stand for must never be permitted to threaten America with weapons of mass destruction." — Dick Cheney, Vice President Detroit, Fund-Raiser 6/20/2002 "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." —Dick Cheney, Vice President Speech to VFW National Convention 8/26/2002 "There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002 "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" -Condoleeza Rice, US National Security Advisor CNN Late Edition 9/8/2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -George W. Bush, President Speech to UN General Assembly 9/12/2002 "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." -George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 "And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons." -George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 "After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." -George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." -George W. Bush, President Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide biological or chemical weapons to a terrorist group or to individual terrorists,...The war on terror will not be won until Iraq is completely and verifiably deprived of weapons of mass destruction." -Dick Cheney, Vice President Denver, Address To Air National Guard 12/1/2002 "If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 12/2/2002 "The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 12/4/2002 "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 1/9/2003 "I am absolutely convinced, based on the information that’s been given to me, that the weapon of mass destruction which can kill more people than an atomic bomb -- that is, biological weapons -- is in the hands of the leadership of Iraq." -Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader MSNBC Interview "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." -George W. Bush, President State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State Remarks to UN Security Council 2/5/2003 "There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more. And he has the ability to dispense these lethal poisons and diseases in ways that can cause massive death and destruction. If biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate, chemical weapons are equally chilling." -Colin Powell, Secretary of State Addresses the U.N. Security Council 2/5/2003 "Let's talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We know that based on intelligence, that [Saddam] has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He's had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -Dick Cheney, Vice President Meet The Press 3/16/2003 "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." -George W. Bush, President Address to the Nation 3/17/2003 "Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 3/21/2003 "I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction." -Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member Washington Post, p. A27 3/23/2003 "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." -Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense ABC Interview 3/30/2003 "We still need to find and secure Iraq's weapons of mass destruction facilities and secure Iraq's borders so we can prevent the flow of weapons of mass destruction materials and senior regime officials out of the country." -Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense Press Conference 4/9/2003 "I think you have always heard, and you continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that, indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 "But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found." -Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Press Briefing 4/10/2003 Yeah, that last one pretty much says it all. This war was NEVER about WMDs...it was always about freedom and democracy. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 507 Registered: 6-2004  |
This argument absolutely requires that you accept one central assumption that you are leaving unstated. It assumes that there was one and only one way to set events in motion that would lead to peace in the Middle East. That is, that only a U.S. led invasion and occupation of Iraq could have accomplished this. It assumes there isn't one single alternative combination of carrots and sticks that would have brought the same result. But we don't know that for a fact because Bush didn't even try any other approach aside from threatening war, and then carrying it out. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 3206 Registered: 8-2003 |
The argument's central assumption also includes that carrots and celery sticks (couple Tomahawks into Baghdad -- don't want casualties to bring down the polls, don't ya know) don't work with tyrants. Only the credible threat (resulting from use) of force causes people to move. No one thinks "ya know, Belgium and Sweden will be mighty disappointed if we don't act so we better hop to it." Threatening war when people know you won't go for it means it's an empty threat. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 508 Registered: 6-2004 |
and the invasion proved that assumption to be a fallacy. the carrots and sticks employed by the U.S. in the '90s did in fact result in Iraq's disarming itself of chemical and biological weapons. |
