War in Iraq

Is that where we're at? "Vote Bush - he's just as bad as the other guy."Kerry's approach attempts to restore America's reputation abroad. Bush's approach of "people can like America or go fuck themselves" drives people to the terrorist camps.

I have to agree with crashfrog again, just because you don't like a man’s politics doesn't mean you hate him. I don't know Bush I am not in a position to make that decision. I am in the position to say that I vehemently disagree with his policies.1. He doesn't believe in evolution which means he has disregarded practically all of modern science. This makes him unqualified to have his finger on the button as far as I am concerned.
2. He squandered every bit of good will we had from the rest of the world by getting involved in a 200 Billion dollar (and it isn't over yet) war for which we have yet to find a reason.
3. He wants to bring his brand of religion to the constitution and government. This is treason in my book.
4. He has put the US in the #1 position for incarcerations per capita of any country in the world. His policy seems to be: more prisons, fewer schools.I'm sure I could come up with more but this is an excellent start.On the plus side:1. I liked the tax cuts
2. He is always good for a laugh.

Calm down my friend, sometimes the word hate doesn't really mean HATE. Maybe I should have asked in another way.Anyways,Here is a quote to think about:"The South Korean plan to send troops to Iraq is not to engage in hostilities against Iraqis or other Arab people but to help reconstruction and restoration in Iraq," Roh said.So, is this help towards liberation a lost cause?Not at all.Whole Article:http://story.news.yahoo.com/...e_mi_ea/iraq&cid=540&ncid=716

---

The earth is flat.

You mean, maybe you shouldn't have construed opposition to a public figure's policies as irrational emnity towards a private individual?Sorry, didn't mean to flip out. But it's a pretty common conservative tactic to do exactly what you did - style the opposition's disagreement with policy as irrational hatred.Anyway I think I made my position pretty clear.

This country was founded on the basis of majority rule with minority rights. Being a minority president (president that lost the popularity vote but won the electoral vote) represents the opposite of majority rule. Bush wants to take away the rights of certain minority groups because, supposedly, his religion tells him to. For example, he's been trying to pass a bill that would effectively ban all gay marriages in the future. In other words, he is trying to get congress to pass an amendment that specifically targets a minority group of American citizens and take away some of their rights.Enough reasons to "hate" him?

---

The Laminator

​

quote:

---

I see your point, and I agree. But I don't think this comparison is fair, considering Bush is not killing his countrymen, although you might say he is causing all of the causualties we see in Iraq, including our own...

---

I do, but I point out as well, Bush has signed over a hundred death warrants, so he is indeed guilty of killing his countrymen. Now you may argue that this was through due process... but the US has suspended due process in the "war on terror".But the serious point is that your opinion on whether the comparison is fair or not is actually wholly irrelevant. The US doctrine says its MY decision alone, if I have the power to act. If *I* think Bush should go for your own good, then I am free to bomb, maim and rape in the name of that good cause - and if you object or complain, that will only confirm how vile and evil you are.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-23-2004 04:23 AM

quote:

---

I was wondering if you might elaborate on this point. I had originally thought that the war must be about oil but the more I thought about it the less sense that made. As best as I can tell there was no problem at all getting oil out of Iraq with Saddam in power. He was perfectly willing to pump and sell his most lucrative natural resource. If the oil wasn't flowing fast enough for us it was because we had imposed an embargo on Iraq.

---

Shell has just had to revise its public statements of its reserve supplies down four times in a row, IIRC. despite the fact that oil stocks are thus now known to be ever smaller than the already parlous situation we understood before, OPEC has agreed to INCREASE production in order to assist western states with fuel costs.Despite the fact that the resource is running out, we want more of it for less. According to othodox economics, the price should be rising as the prospect of sustained supply drops. But we, the west, has the might to influence OPEC through the clear and open military threat it poses to OPEC states. Furthermore, the US now directly controls a or the major oil-producing nation, meaning that the US has the ability to render OPEC even less relevant than it is now.This was a war for oil. The US has taken a very strong stance across the middle east exactly in accordance with the strategic wargames conducted for a notional WWIII.

quote:

---

This is like arguing moral equivalence between the police and the Mafia because both have automatic weapons. IOW, it makes no sense.

---

As it happens, I think they are exactly equivalent. Only I have more respect for thre Mafia, who are at least honest.

quote:

---

No, it didn't happen. The UN talked, but took no action.

---

That is becuase it is forbidden by its constitution from intervening in the internal affairs of member states. And one of the reasons this safeguard appears in the UN is so that it doesn't become the 'one world government' beloved of American conspiracy theorists.

Are you serious? Otherwise normal, peaceful people are becoming beheading murderers because they feel excluded by Bush ? This is like saying that Hitler gassed Jews because of Churchills' hostility towards him.The terroriists become terrorists for the same reasons the SS became SS. Naivete and questionable moral equivalence aside, they still want us dead.In the final analysis, the head of a soverign state must take whatever action is needed to defend the citizens of that state. Unilaterally if necessary.It is one thing to constructively criticize Bush's approach and offer alternatives. This is a legitimate part of democracy.But to suggest that our enemies will make nice if we're just nicer to them is suicidally naive.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you hold to such theories of moral equivalence, you have forfeited any rational basis for criticizing the actions of anyone, including Bush. he's just doing what comes natural to him. Who are you to object ?

Sometimes life forces one to choose the less suboptimal of two suboptimal choices. One could always not vote, I suppose.As to Bush not accepting evolution. This is disappointing, but I fail to see the relevance for his fitness to serve as President. Carter accepted evolution, and was arguablly the best educated and most intelligent of the post WW2 presidents. He was also a miserable failiure at the job.

quote:

---

You mean, maybe you shouldn't have construed opposition to a public figure's policies as irrational emnity towards a private individual?

---

Eggzactly, sorry.

quote:

---

Sorry, didn't mean to flip out. But it's a pretty common conservative tactic to do exactly what you did - style the opposition's disagreement with policy as irrational hatred.

---

Oh really? Wasn't my intention.

quote:

---

Anyway I think I made my position pretty clear.

---

Yep.

---

The earth is flat.

quote:

---

I do, but I point out as well, Bush has signed over a hundred death warrants, so he is indeed guilty of killing his countrymen. Now you may argue that this was through due process... but the US has suspended due process in the "war on terror".

---

Being against the death penalty that is shocking, nope, wouldn't argue that.

quote:

---

But the serious point is that your opinion on whether the comparison is fair or not is actually wholly irrelevant. The US doctrine says its MY decision alone, if I have the power to act. If *I* think Bush should go for your own good, then I am free to bomb, maim and rape in the name of that good cause - and if you object or complain, that will only confirm how vile and evil you are.

---

Yeah, my opinion may be irrelevant, from your perspective of "fairness" is irrelevant, this was simply what I was talking about.

---

The earth is flat.

quote:

---

Sometimes life forces one to choose the less suboptimal of two suboptimal choices. One could always not vote, I suppose.

---

Just to briefly go off topic, this is something I talk about with people all the time (ie not voting). They feel that none of the candidates interest them, or would make good leaders so they just don't go to the polls. My solution is for them to register at the polls but not to vote on a candidate for president. In this way the political establishment will realize that it isn't voter apathy but voter frustration due to the limited number of candidates for president. This tactic might actually birth a strong third party in the US. Who knows.

Thats an amazing idea.

---

The earth is flat.