a question for those who still support bush

[Scuba Pete]

OK, then

let's go invade Columbia!

Then we will head over to Peru!

After that Korea!

Woooo Hooooo, where will the madness end? Why are we the "World Police"?

It's the "before they are a threat" that gives license for the religious right to do ANYTHING and at ANY COST. It's this concept of "NOK" (Not Our Kind) Diplomacy that wrankles my butt! (To say the least, my butt is the last thing you want wrankled!) Look at the FIRST war against Iraq: they INVADED Kuwait. It was an obvious act of aggression. We went to DEFEND Kuwait (actually to free them). Way to go, Daddy Bush! This is still acting as the "World Police" which is not really our place. Far better to NOT act unilaterally, but in concert with the rest of the free world.

 

[Darkdale]

Makes one not so amazed that good men have been so easily convinced to do nothing; and that evil is allowed to prevail.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Makes one not so amazed that good men have been so easily convinced to do nothing; and that evil is allowed to prevail.

Well, next time we won't let this happen and we will defeat the war mongers trying to get into office! Great point!

 

[Faint]

Makes one not so amazed that good men have been so easily convinced to do nothing; and that evil is allowed to prevail.

Great point. I am all for doing battle to end injustice. But that's one of my problems with the Bush admin--they initiated war under the guise of doing the right thing, when all along they just want more money. Saddam was no good for Iraq. But there are other places just as bad, if not worse. Columbia is a good example. Africa as well. In fact, currently, the WHO reports at least 28 African countries that still practice Female Genital Mutilation, and estimate over 2 million girls will be subjected to it this year (a quarter of them will likely die from the procedure). Why isn't Bush helping these girls? Oh yeah! No oil profits!

Anyone who follows world news (not Fox News) can tell you that there are human rights being destroyed all over the globe. If the U.S. is going to put on a cape and try to fight crime and stand for justice in the world, then our government should be straightforward about it, instead of scheming behind the scenes or chipping away at our liberties to "protect" us. The best leaders lead by example. Bush isn't a good example for anything but greed and deception.

What we need are real heroes and champions who can inspire others to also do the right thing.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Far better to NOT act unilaterally, but in concert with the rest of the free world.

I agree that it's better, but it's not always possible. I'm just as frustrated with countries like France and Germany for not *giving* their support as I am with Bush for not getting it. What is the UN doing for Darfur, by the way? Where is the international military force to stop that mindless genocide? Oh, right...that's America's job. No one wants us policing the world until something *really* bad happens and no one else is willing to take action...

Saddam was no good for Iraq. But there are other places just as bad, if not worse. Columbia is a good example. Africa as well.

I agree, but you have to start somewhere. Saddam was certainly one of the worst, if not the worst.

If the U.S. is going to put on a cape and try to fight crime and stand for justice in the world, then our government should be straightforward about it, instead of scheming behind the scenes or chipping away at our liberties to "protect" us. The best leaders lead by example. Bush isn't a good example for anything but greed and deception.

What we need are real heroes and champions who can inspire others to also do the right thing.

I agree with you there.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't know enough curse words to properly express my opinion of Bush getting us into Iraq. But now that we're there, I think we owe it to the Iraqi people not to leave their country defenseless and in a state of civil war. So, I think we should do everything we can to insure that the Iraqi people fairly elect their own government, and that that government has the military means to preserve itself against the terrorists that we have attracted to their country through our inane and unjustified invasion.

 

[jonny]

OK everyone,

Canada is next! Never trust a smiling Canuck! Let's hit 'em BEFORE they become a threat, eh!?!?

I always saw Iraq as a thread. I've never seen Canada as a threat. I remember growing up hoping that Sadaam would pass away soon so that there would be more peace in the world.

Comparing Iraq to Canada is weak.

 

[jonny]

Why are we the "World Police"?

Funny thing. I kept asking myself the same question when Clinton was in office. That's one of the main reasons I voted for Bush in the first place. Unfortunately, 9/11 happened.

 

[Faint]

I always saw Iraq as a thread. I've never seen Canada as a threat. I remember growing up hoping that Sadaam would pass away soon so that there would be more peace in the world.

Comparing Iraq to Canada is weak.

I think that if Canada was a threat, and decided to invade the U.S., it would be one of the greatest military coups ever. No one would expect them. They'd come riding down on us with their mounties and Kodiak bear infantry. RPGs on dog sleds--surprise the hell out of everyone and make us all learn French.

 

[lilithu]

I did not support the war in Iraq. I did not trust the reasons that were given. Does anyone remember here that the primary reason given for the war in Iraq was that they were an eminent threat to our security! The argument was that they were linked to Al Qaeda. The argument was that they had weapons of mass desstruction and they were going to use them. The Bush administration has yet to prove that Saddam was a threat to us. And Spinks, ethics 101: preemptive strikes are generally considered to be unethical.

No one talked about bringing democracy to Iraq until after it became clear that there were no WMAs to be found. You make it sound like Bush had always wanted to bring democracy to Iraq and just lied about the WMAs as an excuse do the right thing. Revisionist history.

To sum up:

finally doing something about Saddam = good
democarcy in Iraq = good
misleading Americans and the world = bad

I did not support the war in Iraq. But I can't argue with that. It remains to be seen if we can actually bring true democracy to Iraq. I am sceptical about the efficacy of imposing democracy on a country from the outside.

 

[michel]

It remains to be seen if we can actually bring true democracy to Iraq. I am sceptical about the efficacy of imposing democracy on a country from the outside.

I can understand that; I feel the same. I am afraid that once we leave, there will be a civil war, which will no doubt end in mass killings.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Pourquoi leur avez-vous donné le secret ?

I think that if Canada was a threat, and decided to invade the U.S., it would be one of the greatest military coups ever. No one would expect them. They'd come riding down on us with their mounties and Kodiak bear infantry. RPGs on dog sleds--surprise the hell out of everyone and make us all learn French.

 

[Sunstone]

It remains to be seen if we can actually bring true democracy to Iraq. I am sceptical about the efficacy of imposing democracy on a country from the outside.

I don't think there is anything in Iraqi culture or history that prepares them for a Western style democracy.

 

[lilithu]

Great point. I am all for doing battle to end injustice. But that's one of my problems with the Bush admin--they initiated war under the guise of doing the right thing, when all along they just want more money.

You guys!! Arrgh!! :banghead3 How is it that even Bush's critics buy into his revisionist history! The initial reason given for going to war against Iraq had nothing to do with doing the right thing. I too am all for doing battle to end injustice. The initial reason was all about self-preservation. A preemptive strike against them before they can get us. The Bush administration did not start talking about "doing the right thing" until after we got in there and couldn't find WMAs. They started with a link to Al Qaeda, and when that didn't pan out, they went to imminent threat of being hit by missles with nukes/chemical weapons in the warheads. THAT is what took us into Iraq. And only after we got there and couldn't find these things did they start talking about freedom and democracy. sheesh. Why do we let him get away with this? Are our memories truly that short?

Gawd knows the real reason why we're there. Whether it really is just for oil, or a vendetta against Saddam, or part of a long-range plan that the neo-cons have for the Middle East, or just to make tons of money for Haliburton. I don't know. But it is clear from all the different spins they've thrown at us that they desperately wanted to go to war with Iraq.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

And Spinks, ethics 101: preemptive strikes are generally considered to be unethical.

Ethics 202: sitting back and watching while one person terrorizes an entire country is generally considered to be unethical (even if he's not doing anything to you).

No one talked about bringing democracy to Iraq until after it became clear that there were no WMAs to be found. You make it sound like Bush had always wanted to bring democracy to Iraq and just lied about the WMAs as an excuse do the right thing. Revisionist history.

Sorry, that's not what I said. For the record, my personal opinion is that I'm not sure why Bush wanted to invade Iraq.

I did not support the war in Iraq. But I can't argue with that. It remains to be seen if we can actually bring true democracy to Iraq. I am sceptical about the efficacy of imposing democracy on a country from the outside.

I can sympathize, but I am even less confident that democracy would have stood a fighting chance had Saddam been succeeded by one of his sons, or if Saddam had been overthrown and civil war and/or military regime replaced him.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ethics 202: sitting back and watching while one person terrorizes an entire country is generally considered to be unethical (even if he's not doing anything to you).

Yeah, but we HAVE to let him finish his second term. That's how things are done here in America!

 

[Faint]

You guys!! Arrgh!! :banghead3 How is it that even Bush's critics buy into his revisionist history! The initial reason given for going to war against Iraq had nothing to do with doing the right thing. I too am all for doing battle to end injustice. The initial reason was all about self-preservation. A preemptive strike against them before they can get us. The Bush administration did not start talking about "doing the right thing" until after we got in there and couldn't find WMAs. They started with a link to Al Qaeda, and when that didn't pan out, they went to imminent threat of being hit by missles with nukes/chemical weapons in the warheads. THAT is what took us into Iraq. And only after we got there and couldn't find these things did they start talking about freedom and democracy. sheesh. Why do we let him get away with this? Are our memories truly that short?

Whoa! I had totally forgotten about that! The stupid "smoking gun/mushroom cloud" nonsense. Damn. Apparently I too have been brainwashed. I blame television and Britney Spears.

 

[Sunstone]

And here I thought up until now that our soldiers went into Iraq to distribute candy to the Iraqi children. Damn! I've been misled by the propaganda!

 

[FFH]

after all the lies the white house has been caught in, i am courious to know why people still support this administration and its wars. i will make no comment on this post i just want to know why those of you who support this administration still support it and its wars. WHY????

The main reason for supporting Bush is that he is trying to free another religious intolerant territiry in the world. Its all about trying to bring religious freedom to the world. Bush does not have to do this. He could just sit in the White House and do nothing and watch cable TV all day like the rest of the western world. Bush chose to do something about religious oppression. Are you opposed to this Almifkar????? You should be fighting along side Bush not against him. If it were not for people like Bush this site would not even exist.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR OPRESSION IS WHAT ALL WARS ARE ABOUT.

 

[Sunstone]

Bush has said nothing to my knowledge about going into Iraq to free Iraqi's from religious oppression. I suspect you just made that up.