So, we're going to complain if a sitting president takes a unilateral action against a sovereign nation to depose a ruler, kills hundreds and thousands of civilians, harms his own soldiers, without the blessing of the United Nations?
Ah.
Strange that nobody complained when Clinton invaded Bosnia, or Serbia, or...
Actually, with respect to this statement, I'm less concerned with Bush's actions that with Clinton's impeachment. That whole circus was more an example of the take-back-the-executive-branch-at-any-cost Republican philosphy than it was true moral outrage on the part of any politicians.
And I still don't believe Hussein's threat to the US was as grave as you think it was. And even if he was, is it right to feed us lie after lie to try to get us to go along with it? And what about the threats posed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and all the others? And what's going on over there now? A year from now, how is it going to be any better than it was two years ago? What is the situation in the rest of the Middle East going to be like? One big reason we went in in the first place (I think regime change was secondary) was to secure a permanent military base in the middle east. How is that going to work out?
As with Bosnia or Serbia, Iraq's stability affected us more from a 'risk to those we support' than to ourselves directly, with the exception of the (now verified) connections between officials in the Iraqi government and terrorist organizations and the potential for unwanted transmission to those organizations of WMDs and technology we developed for Iraq to use against Iran. Additionally, the (now verified) desire of Iraq to enter the nuclear nations list put the world in a very dangerous position -- Iran is already nuclear, and the Iran/Iraq conflict is a multi-century one that would easily go to the next level. With India and Pakistan threatening in the past decade, I don't want to see any more hotspots.
But, I've never said I believe Iraq was an imminent threat to US soil. It's always an intermediary that carries out the attack, and only involves Iraq by way of sympathies or lax security. I find it to be just as much a risk as the disolution of the CCCP, which also troubled me (and, still does).
The issue most people said they had with the Iraq liberation was that it was not UN sanctioned (the fact that it was, possibly, is a matter for bureaucrats and international lawyers to fight over). The moves by Clinton against Bosnia and Serbia were never cleared through the UN, and the agressive bombing campaigns are STILL taking lives as uncleared ordinance is rediscovered by children and farmers and construction workers. I saw almost no anti-war protests then (I did see anti-landmine ones), so I have to assume that war is not the issue as much as WHO is waging it.
I have to agree with Clinton's impeachment, though. While everyone focused on the dress (the fault of the media, I think), the purpose of the impeachment was to draw attention to lying before the courts. I would approve impeaching ANY president that lies to a court while in office, just as I would approve impeaching any judge that does likewise. I hold that depriving someone of their fair day in court by deceit is a high crime on the order of treason.
Clinton's mistake (just as Bush made a mistake by trying to get a clear UN approval for the Iraq war, and failing) was in appearing before the jury at all. He had every right to decline until he was out of office, and had he done so he would have avoided the whole mess.
The thread from Saudi Arabia is problematic, as they are (ostensibly) an ally. I think the movement for a base in Iraq is to clear the ability to take actions against the Saudis, but I could be mistaken. The same is true with Pakistan, who is also an ally of a sort. The real nuclear and non-ally threat of North Korea is the one that SHOULD be addressed, but if you recall we kind of lost there last time, so nobody is interested in digging that hole again. Still, that's our greatest risk. The next is the China/Taiwan issue, I think.
What's going on there now? Check the european and african news sources. They're much less biased against Bush than they are in favor of reporting actual facts, so you see that Iraq is doing much better, except for the infusion of terrorists that were drawn in by the US military presence. Afghanistan is still marginal, but it always has been (until the taliban regime). In a year, or two, or ten, I can't say what will be happening. Iraq has been a democracy for years, but with limited choices. Are there more choices now? Will the prevalence of theocracy and monarchy in the region derail the democratic process? I have no idea, but I don't believe we will ever keep a permanent MidEast military, so long as there is a fundamentalist Islamic movement in the majority of the political process there.
I'm concerned with the world's opinion, but less so with the UN's. If Iraq was such a threat, with regards to the nuclear arms, as you're saying, why didn't the administration take those fears to the American people or to the rest of the world?
I don't recall hearing much about the Bosnian/Serbian wars. Could it be that the rest of the nation knew as little about it as I did? Speaking from my ignorance, weren't we there in support of one side or the other, rather than in no one's interest but our own?
Democrats/Liberals seem to have this idealism in that they can solve many of the nation's or the world's problems together. Republicans/conservatives all seem to have their own issues of concern. Some are about gun control, some are about religion and some are about business. In the administration, some are about oil money, some are about military power and some are about religion. Nobody cares about the other guy's issues. They only promise to help each other so everyone can reach his own goals, but none really seem to care much about the others' goals.
Why is that a problem? Because I don't trust them a bit. What's their agenda? I don't believe that they have our best interests in mind.
Why do I bring it up, here? Because that seems to be what's going on in the MidEast. Some want the oil. Some want the military base. Some want war in general. Some hold Israel's interests foremost. Some have America's economic future in mind. You bring up even more points that I don't recall seeing in the many op-ed pieces I've read.
As for Clinton's mistakes, he made many. I'm personally very pissed of about the "meaning of is" comment. But I'm also angry at the Republicans for dragging us through all that. How many millions of dollars were spent to prove that he had an affair? It's kind of like the Swift Boat for Truth crap. "Kerry has a service record so that immediately makes Bush look bad, so make his record look bad. Say he lied about it."
I don't believe we will ever keep a permanent MidEast military, so long as there is a fundamentalist Islamic movement in the majority of the political process there. My feeling exactly, which make me wonder what we were doing over there. I guess I took Bush at his word when he said we were going to install a democratic leadership in Iraq. Did he really believe that, or did he just say that to please his constituents? Probably the second, because he started out by saying we weren't in the business of setting up governments. I don't know. Maybe he really did suddenly realize he had to have a better exit strategy.
I think the freeway blogger said it best: "When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died"
I seem to recall that not a single American died from hostile fire in Bosnia, and that war had the blessing of NATO. It also happened to be a case of massive genocide in progress. Most of Saddam's atrocities were historic. I think the republicans fail to use one of the best arguments for war in Iraq: That it ended 12 years of sanctions so that 10s of thousands of innocent kids could get avoid starvation, malnourishment and senseless death for lack of medicine. Instead they insist on the implication that Iraq caused 9/11 and were somehow more of a threat to US than Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban and bin Laden put together.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chiming
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 04:10 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 05:10 am (UTC)From:Tied with Freekee's quote for 2nd place:
Rums failed.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 05:19 am (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 04:12 pm (UTC)From:Ah.
Strange that nobody complained when Clinton invaded Bosnia, or Serbia, or...
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 08:06 pm (UTC)From:I'm not sure what the UN had to do with it.
Actually, with respect to this statement, I'm less concerned with Bush's actions that with Clinton's impeachment. That whole circus was more an example of the take-back-the-executive-branch-at-any-cost Republican philosphy than it was true moral outrage on the part of any politicians.
And I still don't believe Hussein's threat to the US was as grave as you think it was. And even if he was, is it right to feed us lie after lie to try to get us to go along with it? And what about the threats posed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and all the others? And what's going on over there now? A year from now, how is it going to be any better than it was two years ago? What is the situation in the rest of the Middle East going to be like? One big reason we went in in the first place (I think regime change was secondary) was to secure a permanent military base in the middle east. How is that going to work out?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-28 09:31 pm (UTC)From:But, I've never said I believe Iraq was an imminent threat to US soil. It's always an intermediary that carries out the attack, and only involves Iraq by way of sympathies or lax security. I find it to be just as much a risk as the disolution of the CCCP, which also troubled me (and, still does).
The issue most people said they had with the Iraq liberation was that it was not UN sanctioned (the fact that it was, possibly, is a matter for bureaucrats and international lawyers to fight over). The moves by Clinton against Bosnia and Serbia were never cleared through the UN, and the agressive bombing campaigns are STILL taking lives as uncleared ordinance is rediscovered by children and farmers and construction workers. I saw almost no anti-war protests then (I did see anti-landmine ones), so I have to assume that war is not the issue as much as WHO is waging it.
I have to agree with Clinton's impeachment, though. While everyone focused on the dress (the fault of the media, I think), the purpose of the impeachment was to draw attention to lying before the courts. I would approve impeaching ANY president that lies to a court while in office, just as I would approve impeaching any judge that does likewise. I hold that depriving someone of their fair day in court by deceit is a high crime on the order of treason.
Clinton's mistake (just as Bush made a mistake by trying to get a clear UN approval for the Iraq war, and failing) was in appearing before the jury at all. He had every right to decline until he was out of office, and had he done so he would have avoided the whole mess.
The thread from Saudi Arabia is problematic, as they are (ostensibly) an ally. I think the movement for a base in Iraq is to clear the ability to take actions against the Saudis, but I could be mistaken. The same is true with Pakistan, who is also an ally of a sort. The real nuclear and non-ally threat of North Korea is the one that SHOULD be addressed, but if you recall we kind of lost there last time, so nobody is interested in digging that hole again. Still, that's our greatest risk. The next is the China/Taiwan issue, I think.
What's going on there now? Check the european and african news sources. They're much less biased against Bush than they are in favor of reporting actual facts, so you see that Iraq is doing much better, except for the infusion of terrorists that were drawn in by the US military presence. Afghanistan is still marginal, but it always has been (until the taliban regime). In a year, or two, or ten, I can't say what will be happening. Iraq has been a democracy for years, but with limited choices. Are there more choices now? Will the prevalence of theocracy and monarchy in the region derail the democratic process? I have no idea, but I don't believe we will ever keep a permanent MidEast military, so long as there is a fundamentalist Islamic movement in the majority of the political process there.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-30 04:42 am (UTC)From:I don't recall hearing much about the Bosnian/Serbian wars. Could it be that the rest of the nation knew as little about it as I did? Speaking from my ignorance, weren't we there in support of one side or the other, rather than in no one's interest but our own?
Democrats/Liberals seem to have this idealism in that they can solve many of the nation's or the world's problems together. Republicans/conservatives all seem to have their own issues of concern. Some are about gun control, some are about religion and some are about business. In the administration, some are about oil money, some are about military power and some are about religion. Nobody cares about the other guy's issues. They only promise to help each other so everyone can reach his own goals, but none really seem to care much about the others' goals.
Why is that a problem? Because I don't trust them a bit. What's their agenda? I don't believe that they have our best interests in mind.
Why do I bring it up, here? Because that seems to be what's going on in the MidEast. Some want the oil. Some want the military base. Some want war in general. Some hold Israel's interests foremost. Some have America's economic future in mind. You bring up even more points that I don't recall seeing in the many op-ed pieces I've read.
As for Clinton's mistakes, he made many. I'm personally very pissed of about the "meaning of is" comment. But I'm also angry at the Republicans for dragging us through all that. How many millions of dollars were spent to prove that he had an affair? It's kind of like the Swift Boat for Truth crap. "Kerry has a service record so that immediately makes Bush look bad, so make his record look bad. Say he lied about it."
I don't believe we will ever keep a permanent MidEast military, so long as there is a fundamentalist Islamic movement in the majority of the political process there. My feeling exactly, which make me wonder what we were doing over there. I guess I took Bush at his word when he said we were going to install a democratic leadership in Iraq. Did he really believe that, or did he just say that to please his constituents? Probably the second, because he started out by saying we weren't in the business of setting up governments. I don't know. Maybe he really did suddenly realize he had to have a better exit strategy.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-01 05:17 am (UTC)From:"When Clinton Lied, Nobody Died"
I seem to recall that not a single American died from hostile fire in Bosnia, and that war had the blessing of NATO. It also happened to be a case of massive genocide in progress. Most of Saddam's atrocities were historic. I think the republicans fail to use one of the best arguments for war in Iraq: That it ended 12 years of sanctions so that 10s of thousands of innocent kids could get avoid starvation, malnourishment and senseless death for lack of medicine. Instead they insist on the implication that Iraq caused 9/11 and were somehow more of a threat to US than Al Qaeda, Hamas, the Taliban and bin Laden put together.