Congress wants an explanation

[barrowaj]

Actually it's been my experience over the last few years that the stereotypical internet Lefty/Liberal is a poor thinker - long on outrage but short on facts and reasoning ability. Must be the medium. Most of my Lefty/Liberal friends are excellent debaters and quite intelligent.

-dale

Yeah, when you don't have any commitment to a group then you don't have any credibility to loose I guess. I've read plenty of poorly thought out rants on both sides.

I wonder if the political cross section of (American) internet users is any different from the US though.

[DeJay79]

ok ok ok, Well being the resident noob to this Forum, I figure this thread is as good as any to cut my teeth.

Commitment is the one of the things that I am looking for in this forum.
I am also looking for an outlet of expression of my views that will give resistance to my views ( I believe I have found that).
I am also looking for a new source of information about the world I live in and the politics of it.

So in an attempt to not be a "troll or leftist" (not that I even know what a troll is) I will give some more of my Thoughts to explain my position.

"Thoughts" is the key word because as many of you will be quick to point out I don't have many facts to support my opinions. Yet looking at what the rest of you "quite intelligent" members wrote I don't see any facts really. That also is one of the problems that I had with the justification of this war. I feel that the administration did a piss poor job of providing believable facts to support THE NEED for war.

WAR is not a strategy that should be used lightly. War is serious and the president treated it very Nonchalantly. This brings me to another question, it seems that several of the members here are or were service men/women, how do you personally feel about this president’s decision to use force? I am not asking to belittle you or to use what you say against you, I am asking in earnest.

These are strictly my beliefs, but please give them a listen. I feel that This president fully intended to go to war with Iraq and remove Saddam the Day that he was elected. However because of the situation in which he was elected without the popular vote, he could not just run off to war. Then Sept. 11 came and with his popularity raising as a result he felt that the situation was right. Sure he had to give chance to Osama for a while but very quickly his attention was turned to this HUGE CRISES in Iraq. A situation that had existed sense the end of the first Gulf War and was not going anywhere soon. Osama who? Saddam is the real threat! *political slide of hand* To the presidents credit Saddam is a stubborn little bastard, we did give him chances to give up without a fight, but who really thought that he would, not me! My point to all this is I feel this president is not much more than a Warmonger and an Elitist.

No by no means do I suggest that Saddam was a stand up guy. He was a tyrannical dictator. but it is not like he is the only one in this world. In fact he was probably the least threatening one to us, but the other countries with tyrannical dictators don't have UN sanctions against them that would give the U.S. a legal right to invade them.

I don't think that this country should have spent more than $58.26 of its money in an effort to remove Saddam from power let alone the cost in US citizen Life that has been spent. I have friends and family that have served and are serving in Iraq so I am not total removed the cost's that this war has put on it's citizens.

of course I could go on but I am sure you all have heard this all before and this seems like enough to talk about for a few days.

Also F.Y.I. as my profile says I am not a liberal or conservative. I am an independent, there are several members of both parties that I think are good politicians and others that I think suck big time.

[dalem]

My point to all this is I feel this president is not much more than a Warmonger and an Elitist.

If that is all your point is...

Too bad that none of the people that know him personally agree with you about him being an elitist. Let alone the lack of public evidence to support your claim.

And if he's such a warmonger why did he take the diplomatic efforts into overtime?

If you're so concerend about how the Iraq War was executed, why don't you enlighten us as to what you would have done?

Would you have initiated "the Bush Doctrine" of Democratic reform int he Middle East at all?

Would you have been satisfied with the status quo of the last 50 years that bred the problems in the first place?

Educate me.

-dale

[Major Dad]

WAR is not a strategy that should be used lightly. War is serious and the president treated it very Nonchalantly. This brings me to another question, it seems that several of the members here are or were service men/women, how do you personally feel about this president’s decision to use force? I am not asking to belittle you or to use what you say against you, I am asking in earnest.

I was opposed to the war. Not because I give a **** about what the UN thinks, or the 'international community', or wether or not the US is too 'unilateralist', or imperialist, or any of the rest of the BS that gets trotted out when this subject comes up. I was opposed to it because I didn't think the benefits to us (oil and all) justified the risks.

Having said that, I have to admit that there have been some unexpected dividends to the war. It has proven wonderfully effective at attracting Moslem terrorists and drawing them into the open where they can be dispatched. As has often been pointed out, it is better to fight them in the streets of Baghdad then the streets of Washington. Also, and more importantly, it has completely shattered the status quo that existed in the mid-east ever since the the British said "Screw it" and left back in 48. This has already had a profound effect everywhere from Egypt to Saudi Arabia. So, on balance, I guess I'm now in the undecided camp. Time will tell

[DeJay79]

Would you have been satisfied with the status quo of the last 50 years that bred the problems in the first place?

Educate me.

-dale

1. I am an ass, I know this and my best friends know this. However if you were to ask them "is DJ an ass?" they would say "no, he's a great guy." especially if they were going "on the record". So a few of Bush's groupies saying that Bush is not an Elitist - that proves nothing to me other than the fact that he has friends. As far as public evidence Just watch him give a speech to a group of extremely wealthy people.

2. The "diplomatic efforts" you speak of, is that the deadline that Bush gave to comply or Die. I guess your right how Diplomatic of him. Threat of invasion is not usually the best way to work things out.

3. I am not "concerend" about how the War is being executed. What I am concerned. about is the fact that it happened at all. What would I have done? I would have Not gone to war.

4. Actually that was not the "Bush Doctrine". The United States has been "sharing our democracy" with other countries that didn't want it for a long time. Remember the Red Scare?? Bush just happens to be the worst about it. You shouldn't tout the "Bush Doctrine" as a good thing. That doctrine is why the United States is considered the ass of the world by many other countries.

5. Lets think about the middle east for a sec... Picture yourself as an Iraqi or Iranian during the late 70's and 80's. Sitting in the desert, reading the Koran. Then you go off to war with your neighbor. At this point because of the U.S.'s oil interest that far off country gets involved. To the losers (Iran) the will quickly blame and Hate the U.S. But the winners do hate the U.S. right away first they feel bad about needing are help, the start to slowly resent us. But with this new found arsenal the make a move for power. Kuwait is the perfect target, small, defenseless, and in control of very important land. But what is this, the Same Country that helped you is now protecting the pathetic Kuwait, but I thought that they were for us Iraqis.
Now we (the U.S.) have two militant nations that both blame us for their battlefield defeats. Throw into the mix that these are Islamic nations and we are primarily Christian. Even I can see trouble brewing.

So to answer that question Yes I would have been satisfied with the status quo of 50 years ago but in the last 30 or so Years The United States has been brewing its own problems in that region.

[dalem]

1. I am an ass, I know this and my best friends know this. However if you were to ask them "is DJ an ass?" they would say "no, he's a great guy." especially if they were going "on the record". So a few of Bush's groupies saying that Bush is not an Elitist - that proves nothing to me other than the fact that he has friends. As far as public evidence Just watch him give a speech to a group of extremely wealthy people.

Illogical. I can present to a group of wealthy people and kill, or not wealthy people and kill. You think he's an "Elitist" because people that don't know him tell you he's an "elitist".

2. The "diplomatic efforts" you speak of, is that the deadline that Bush gave to comply or Die. I guess your right how Diplomatic of him. Threat of invasion is not usually the best way to work things out.

So you are ignorant of the diplomatic efforts undertaken from Fall 2002 through March of 2003 - and that's just the public side of what went on. An honest admission, fair enough.

3. I am not "concerend" about how the War is being executed. What I am concerned. about is the fact that it happened at all. What would I have done? I would have Not gone to war.

So status quo is okay with you. Okay.

4. Actually that was not the "Bush Doctrine". The United States has been "sharing our democracy" with other countries that didn't want it for a long time. Remember the Red Scare?? Bush just happens to be the worst about it. You shouldn't tout the "Bush Doctrine" as a good thing. That doctrine is why the United States is considered the ass of the world by many other countries.

Whether or not people in other countries think the U.S. is "the ass of the world" is of minimal concern to me. And Democratizing the Middle East seems to sit well with people that don't already HAVE basic freedoms, or obtained them only fairly recently. Did you catch the crowds celebrating President Bush in Georgia last week?

5. Lets think about the middle east for a sec... Picture yourself as an Iraqi or Iranian during the late 70's and 80's. Sitting in the desert, reading the Koran. Then you go off to war with your neighbor. At this point because of the U.S.'s oil interest that far off country gets involved. To the losers (Iran) the will quickly blame and Hate the U.S. But the winners do hate the U.S. right away first they feel bad about needing are help, the start to slowly resent us. But with this new found arsenal the make a move for power. Kuwait is the perfect target, small, defenseless, and in control of very important land. But what is this, the Same Country that helped you is now protecting the pathetic Kuwait, but I thought that they were for us Iraqis.
Now we (the U.S.) have two militant nations that both blame us for their battlefield defeats. Throw into the mix that these are Islamic nations and we are primarily Christian. Even I can see trouble brewing.

Your understanding of U.S. Cold War Middle East policy is... interesting.

So to answer that question Yes I would have been satisfied with the status quo of 50 years ago but in the last 30 or so Years The United States has been brewing its own problems in that region.

I certainly agree that we have been brewing our own problems there, but that happened exactly because we valued status quo above all other things. Part of this whole mess is our fault - shouldn't we do something about it?

-dale

[Parihaka]

Too bad that none of the people that know him personally agree with you about him being an elitist. Let alone the lack of public evidence to support your claim.
-dale

"This is an impressive crowd—the haves and the have mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base"
President Bush

[Ziska]

Pari dude... that was Dubya making a joke at his own expense.... you gotta stop believing Michael Mooreon.