Democrat Logic (Sic)

[imported_Conrad]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/editorial/cartoon/2004/450/030304.jpg

[Jim H]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/nader_green.jpg

[Meerkat]

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_jesus_christ.jpg

Think Mel Gibson would approve? :D

[On Vacation]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/01/bush_administration_assailed_as_withholding_suppor t/

Bush administration assailed as withholding support
By Wayne Washington, Globe Staff, 3/1/2004

WASHINGTON -- Many black political leaders blamed President Bush yesterday for failing to focus enough on the humanitarian problems boiling in Haiti, and said the administration's unwillingness to support the government of its now-exiled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, set a dangerous precedent.


"Democracy has a black eye in Haiti this morning," said Representative Elijah E. Cummings, the Maryland Democrat who is chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. "By the inaction of the United States government and our allies over the last several years, the democratically elected president of Haiti has been undermined and forced to leave his country. With the sudden departure of President Aristide, the Congressional Black Caucus is very concerned that violence does not overtake the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince."

Aristide's regime fell amid complaints by opponents of corruption and ineffectiveness in dealing with the crushing poverty in Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. But as rebel forces closed in on Port-au-Prince last week, black political leaders in the United States complained that the Bush administration -- unwilling to take the lead in a messy situation in a presidential election year -- was once again standing on the sidelines while a black nation descended into chaos.

[LeeG]

this nation building business is too confusing. Lets leave it to the leaders who know about these things.

[ljb5]

Before the war, Iraq was stable. Diplomacy, and trade policy contained the situation and could have led to a non-violent outcome.

Haiti, on the other hand, was unstable, with riots and political killings in the streets.

Different situations call for different approaches.

For the record, I don't believe that the U.S. backed a coup against Aristide. We could have if we wanted to, we certainly have done similar in the past. It's just that I can't figure out why we would care. Since the decline of the triangular trade, it hasn't really been of much interest to the U.S.

[alteran]

"Before the war, Iraq was stable"

Sure was. Dead people in mass graves and live ones locked in torture chambers. Stability is good.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by alteran:
"Before the war, Iraq was stable"

Sure was. Dead people in mass graves and live ones locked in torture chambers. Stability is good.Those mass graves were from the Reagan era. If you want to get all upset about them, you could have done that twenty years ago when Dick Cheney was supporting him and Rumsfeld shook his hand.

I'm not defending Saddam. I'm just saying there were lots of ways to deal with the situation.

The one we used has several adverse effects: it lowered our reputation in the world, it resulted in the deaths of Americans, it enhanced Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts and it hasn't yet resulted in an improved situation.

How do you define success? Have we acheived it?

[ 03-04-2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: ljb5 ]

[km gresham]

How the heck do some define "stable"? Ok, lets go for medical terms - critical but stable. Or maybe terminal, but stable. Those populating the torture chambers, rape rooms and mass grave probably didn't care much for "stable".
Saddam liked it pretty well, though as did his sons and henchmen.

[ 03-04-2004, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[ljb5]

Originally posted by km gresham:
How the heck do some define "stable"? Ok, lets go for medical terms - critical but stable. Or maybe terminal, but stable. Those populating the torture chambers, rape rooms and mass grave probably didn't care much for "stable".
Saddam liked it pretty well, though as did his sons and henchmen.So did Reagan, when it suited him.

No one is saying that Saddam was a nice guy. I'm just asking if we dealt with him in the way that best served American interests. The jury is still out on that.

If Iraq disintegrates in a civil war, the body count will far outnumber the mass graves. Is that a step in the right direction? If the next leader is a as corrupt as the last, but more agreeable to American interests, is that a step in the right direction?

[alteran]

Chew on this awhile lbj5.

------------

KADHAFI ADMITS WAR IN IRAQ CONVINCED LIBYA TO GIVE UP WMD

This isn't exactly front page news, but this victory in the war on terror shouldn't go unnoticed. Libyan leader Moammar Kadhafi said yesterday that his country is no longer pursuing weapons of mass destruction and wants better relations with the United States. And what has forced this sudden change of tune? That's right, the invasion of Iraq, overthrow of the government and capture of Saddam Hussein by the United States of America. That's what.

Asked directly if the war in Iraq had been a factor, Col. Kadhafi had this to say: "We made our own decision and our analysis on the current world situation, and we came to the conclusion.....that we can't....go ahead with having these programs." Translation: I don't want to be on George Bush's bad side. Speaking about the recent talks with visiting U.S. congressmen, Kadhafi gushed: "We are very much interested that we are able to understand each other. The problem before was that we were not able, we did not have a chance to sit down with each other and have a dalogue. Now we are able to understand each other." That's right, Moammar...we understand each other perfectly now. Do what we say, or else. It's that simple.

The point is this: would any of this have happened with a President Kerry in office? Absolutely not. We would be placating Islamic terrorists as we follow the same old policies of appeasement and "dialogue." If Libya wasn't absolutely certain that the United States meant business, none of this would be happening. It's the same reason North Korea is giving up their nukes. They know the score, plain and simple.

No matter what John Kerry and the Democrats say, terrorism is not a "law enforcement problem" and the war on terror has succeeded in making the world a safer place.

------------------------

[imported_Conrad]

"Before the war, Iraq was stable."

You know, I think even Meer would agree that this statement qualifies you as the newest proven idiot. Are you on life support? :rolleyes: :(

[alteran]

We all have our cross to bear. You have Meerkat in Seattle, me lbj5 in Wisconsin.

[imported_Conrad]

:D

[Art Read]

"Those mass graves were from the Reagan era."

Are you really as nieve as you appear? Do you even REMEMBER the Reagan administration? How about Carter's? Is the cold war simply something you read about in your high school "Social Studies" class?

And I challenge you to get any of the "Marsh Arabs" in the South, or the Kurds in the North, or any of the various other "inconvenient" citizens of Irag since the '91 cease fire to back that "remarkarble" claim.

[Ian McColgin]

alteran has posted a opinion piece that's unattributed. The writer draws some rather broad conclusions about the 'war on terror' from the one 'fact' of Kadhafi suddenly being brought to heel by our tough Iraq policy.

The writer appears not to realize that Kadhafi does not have even the ghost of a WMD program.

The writer may have forgotten that Kadhafi has in the past harbored various terrorists and terror training facilities. Harbored them, not ran them.

And Kadhafi has found out terrorists are a threat to him as well.

So he wants to clean up his act a little. He wants to improve his relations with the US.

Kadhafi knew we could not resist making nice with him if he put on a little act.

It's nice to make nice.

"That's right, Moammar...we understand each other perfectly now. Do what we say, or else. It's that simple."

I actually think improved relations with Lybia would be good. But we're being played here. Our administration is simply too naive and too greedy and too set in being a bully to notice.

Would any of this have happened with a President Kerry?

Probably not.

We'd not be basing our foreign policy on a simpleminded bully's swagger.

We'd not be making wars of aggression.

We'd not be ignoring the actual terrorists who carry out terror attacks around the globe daily.

We'd not be continuing with the unpatriotic "Patriot Act," much less burdening the Department of Homeland Security with pursuit of child pornographers.

We'd not be basing 'intelligence' on pathological liars like Ahmad Chalabi.

And we'd not be running coups on behalf of blood drenched thugs like Guy Philippe.

The unknown writer is correct: Under a President Kerry a few things would be different.

[imported_Conrad]

Ian- please refer to the opening post in this thread. tongue.gif ;)

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Art Read:
"Those mass graves were from the Reagan era."

Are you really as nieve as you appear? Do you even REMEMBER the Reagan administration? Yes, I remember the Reagan administration. I remember the U.S. supporting Saddam against Iran. The victims in those mass graves were killed in the 1980s. Afterwards, Rumsfeld met with Saddam.

I'm not turning a blind eye to those victims. Reagan, Cheney and Rumsfeld decided that was a holocaust we could live with. Years later, for other reasons, they resurrected the issue and decided they do care.

How is it that you don't remember this?

[Meerkat]

Actually, a good many in those mass graves are there because Bush the First withdrew support for the Sunni uprising in S. Iraq after the Gulf War. Ewps.

[Art Read]

"The victims in those mass graves were killed in the 1980s."

From the first hit on a "Google" search under "Recent mass graves, Iraq":

"Charity searches recent mass grave in Iraq for bodies
Hussein foes likely killed soon before Baghdad's fall

By John Daniszewski
Times Staff Writer
Originally published June 9, 2003
SALMAN PAK, Iraq - As survivors desperate for news of missing relatives looked on, a big yellow backhoe methodically cut a trench in the sandy dirt, bringing up two more bodies yesterday.

It was a small recovery for a hot morning's work, but it did not deter Sheik Khadim Fartousi, leader of an Islamic charity, who told reporters that they were standing on a mass grave - the site where some of the last executions of political prisoners of Saddam Hussein's regime took place.

Fartousi said four busloads of political prisoners were brought to this area near the infamous Salman Pak training camp and chemical weapons facility and executed in April, only five days before U.S. forces took nearby Baghdad. Information about the executions came from witnesses and former employees of the Iraqi intelligence service, he said.

Fartousi, whose organization is called Al Walah, or Loyalty, said seven bodies had been revealed in two days of work, and he expected to find others in the brown mottled earth in the immediate vicinity.

"You could hear the shooting," said Mustafa Saad, an 18-year-old who lives in the area. "It happened during a dust storm."

According to Saad and other townspeople, buses laden with prisoners drove along the dirt track that runs along the Tigris River here. When the buses came back, Saad said, they were empty. The executioners were in such a hurry to flee that they did not have time to bury those killed, and others came later to do that, he said.

Burial site

The newly found grave site is at a place that was used by Hussein's government to train assassins for the intelligence service, defectors said. It is along the river, where it makes a loop 15 miles south of Baghdad.

And unlike other mass graves that have been uncovered in the two months since U.S. and British forces took control of Iraq, these graves are recent. Religious leaders say they are convinced that as many as 150 political prisoners met their fate here in Salman Pak on April 4, when Hussein's government was gasping its last breath.

Several dozen men were helping with the excavation yesterday. They scampered over the hot soil, some in bare feet, brushing back dirt and picking up the remains with hands covered with plastic bags or latex gloves. When recovered, the remains were inspected for any documents and wrapped in two layers of clear plastic.

Seeking information

Among those waiting, desperate for any scrap of information, was Kamal Sagban, 58, a grizzled farmer who had arisen at 4 a.m. to drive from his home in Samawah, 130 miles south, on the faintest of hopes that he might find the remains of his younger brother, who was taken away by the government's security service in February 1992.

Sagban heard about the discovery of the Salman Pak grave site on television and decided at once to investigate, as he had several other mass graves in recent weeks.

"They claimed he was a member of the Dawa Party [a mainly Shiite group with a long history of resistance to Baathist rule], but he had nothing to do with that," Sagban said of his brother Abul Zahra, who would now be 53 and left behind two wives. "Maybe at least I will find his ID."

Ajiba Ali Salma, with tears in her eyes and her leathery face framed by a black chador, voiced similar feelings about her son Moussa Hadi Moussa, who would be 40 now. He has been missing since his arrest at his home in Baghdad in 1991.

"As soon as they took him, I started searching for him. Whenever I hear any news, I go there to find him," she said. "I go to the Freed Prisoners Society. Now I am going to all the mass graves. But I am about to lose my hope."

Fartousi, who said he was imprisoned for 12 years during Hussein's rule, said his organization would take the remains and provide proper Muslim burials if no one claimed them. They will be photographed and cataloged and put into the association's records, available for scrutiny by families looking for loved ones.

Copyright © 2004, The Los Angeles Times"

Wanna try again?

[imported_Conrad]

Sorry, the victims in those mass graves were killed in the 1990's, under Clinton's watch, as retribution for uprisings following the original Gulf War.

You were what, 4, when Regan took office, and a politically active 12 year old when he left? But after reading leftist propaganda for a decade and a half you choose to share the "truth" with us? You are entirely without credibility.

Do you really have any concept of what the world political situation was like in the 1960's and '70's leading up to the Regan era? Did you ever go over to your neighbor's to see their fancy new concrete bomb shelter? Do you remember the ads for emergency rations and other bits to help you and your family survive the coming nuclear attack? I doubt it, and without the shading gained through perspective your analysis comes across as exactly what it is- nothing more than partisan boilerplate tripe.

Edited to add- OH MY GOD!!- even the Kat won't swallow this one! Let's give Meer some credit! That makes it, uh, a gazillion to, um, 7? ;)

[ 03-04-2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Conrad ]

[Ian McColgin]

Ah the world in the '60's and '70's.

I don't recollect any private fall out shelters being built after the latter '50's. Public ones for sure - like the university I attendended which was mostly built after '64.

And different places in the world were scarey or nice. Beruit was lovely. I went hiking alone in Afganistan. Kenya looked like it might work. If a plane was hijacked, it was just to Cuba where Castro would jail the hijacker, give everyone a cigar, refuel the plane and send 'em off.

On the down side, there was VietNam.

I'm not really a pessamist. I don't think the younger generation has gone to the dogs. But global stability and global safety are not enhanced by having just one unmatchable big guy around.

[ljb5]

The post above about recent mass graves shows how Saddam anticipated the American invasion. Towards the end of WWII, when the Germans could see that they were going to lose the war, they directed resources away from the war and towards the death camps.

If the U.S. hadn't invaded when we did, there's a chance that those prisoners might still be alive and accesible through diplomatic means. I won't say that the U.S. bears any responsibility for those deaths, but we may have squandered a possibility to save them.

[ljb5]

Actually, I was three when Reagan took office. I remember doing 'duck and cover' drills in elementary school.

I'm all growed up now and I've done my homework.

How is it that I know more about Reagan and Saddam than you do?

[Art Read]

"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." Combined with such astonishing hubris, it's really quite unattractive as well.

[Bob Smalser]

Great Orators of the Democratic Party

"One man with courage makes a majority."--Andrew Jackson

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."--Franklin Roosevelt

"The buck stops here."--Harry Truman

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."--John Kennedy

"This isn't going to be some kind of, you know, we're-like-them-they're-like-us-wishy-washy-mealy-mouth-you-can't-tell-the-difference deal. This is going to be something where we're giving America a real choice."--John Kerry

[ljb5]

NewsMax (https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/27/184622.shtml): 200 in mass grave, 1991, G.H.W.Bush

Pittsburg Tribune (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/specialreports/iraq/s_155195.html): 5000 Kurds in mass grave, 1988 (Reagan)

182,000 Kurds killed starting in 1987 (Reagan).

NewsMax (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/12/14/102858.shtml) 300,000 victims in 270 mass graves, 1980 (Reagan)

[imported_Conrad]

"I'm all growed up now and I've done my homework."

Sadly, you haven't- or you'd never post something as outrageous as "before the war, Iraq was stable."

But you are an effective, if not very illuminating, troll. :rolleyes:

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by ljb5:


Before the war, Iraq was stable. Diplomacy, and trade policy contained the situation and could have led to a non-violent outcome.

Those mass graves were from the Reagan era. #1 is arguable but unlikely.

#2 is completely false. Completely.

Shia massacres 1991-1995 or so. The death of the Marsh Arabs. Massive. I don't need research to tell you about it.


The post above about recent mass graves shows how Saddam anticipated the American invasion. In 1991?

You're going downhill fast....even JAX did better.

[ 03-04-2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[ljb5]

Here is a handy little document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf) detailing Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds in November 1983. (declassified National Security Archive)

Here is Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam one month later.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

[Alan D. Hyde]

And your point is... ???

Alan

[On Vacation]

Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by alteran:
"Before the war, Iraq was stable"

Sure was. Dead people in mass graves and live ones locked in torture chambers. Stability is good.Those mass graves were from the Reagan era. If you want to get all upset about them, you could have done that twenty years ago when Dick Cheney was supporting him and Rumsfeld shook his hand.

I'm not defending Saddam. I'm just saying there were lots of ways to deal with the situation.

The one we used has several adverse effects: it lowered our reputation in the world, it resulted in the deaths of Americans, it enhanced Al Qaeda's recruiting efforts and it hasn't yet resulted in an improved situation.

How do you define success? Have we acheived it?</font>[/QUOTE]Let me point out several issues to you. 3,000 plus dead people in almost one hour, one morning ON OUR SOIL was just another assault on the world of Democracy. Check back to the middle ages in your mind, and look up the Iran Hostages, Beruit bombing, embassies bombed, first trade center bombing, U.S.S. Cole bombing, must I go on for such a mush mind of ignorance, to tell you the United States was on the verge of being eliminated as a super power statis, if the killing of innocent people, on our own soil was allowed to continue, many from multi nations of the world, by the terrorists organizations that trained in the middle east. This is a fact that has been admitted to, evidence to obtain of nukes and or plans to build nukes turned in by rogue nations in the region.

Check out the latest questionaire that states over 57 percent of the people in our country support our negative reputation around the world. Then look at what appeasements did for this nation, by going back and up reading once again the evidence I provided for you. One point of note, that happened during the time that you idiots thinks we were liked by the world. One more point of note, also, is that the pilots trained in this country under a different president that so many of you hold up to be the greatest ever liked president around the world.

Dont be such an idiot next time you post this crap. Then I will not, once again, have to point out your shallow words with just a few of our historical facts. This is what I like about reading such stuff. I can almost cut and paste my response for almost every post you put up, when you attempt to discredit this president on the war on terrorism.

I am not here on Earth to please other nations of the world. So many enjoy freedoms and an economy that thrives because of our support for generations. They don't like us, thats fine. Remove our troops and our check books this year. Is you candidate promising to do this? Nope he will send more troops all over the world, with one tank of fuel to be killed again, like the ones in the Cole crap. Our military and its leader then, in the name of appeasements with the terrorists, put our troops at risk and they died also in the Navy vessel depending on terrorist oil, and a terrrorist port. Now that is your history lesson for the day on this thread. But I will see what else I have missed this last few days.

[ 03-04-2004, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by ljb5:
Here is a handy little document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf) detailing Saddam's use of chemical weapons against Iran and the Kurds in November 1983. (declassified National Security Archive)

Here is Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam one month later.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpgWe know all that already.

The consequences of Iran winning the Iran-Iraq war were unthinkable at the time.

Interesting you endow leaders of the past you don't like with prescience.

The CIA-DOD crystal ball.

Tell me more about Iraq in the early '90's. I want to learn.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
And your point is... ???

AlanMy point is that conservatives didn't see anything wrong with Saddam when he suited them and then they manufactured a lot of outrage about him when he didn't suit them.

The issue, for conservatives, was never mass graves or WMD - it was always conservatives' interests.

15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. All of the hijackers' money came from Saudi Arabia. But Bush has business relations in Saudi Arabia (which is also a brutal regime and not a Democracy) so we attack Afghanistan.

There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and no WMDs. The mass graves were real, but the outrage conservatives expressed about them was fake, because they knew they were there for twenty years, but never before felt any outrage.

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:

Interesting you endow leaders of the past you don't like with prescience.
I looked up prescience (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=prescience) it means the ability to see into the future.

What I'm talking about here is the ability to remember the past. Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran and Iraqi Kurds, and then (afterwards) Rumsfeld met with him, shook his hand, made nice and promised that the U.S. would look the other way.

Saddam continued to enjoy the support of the Reagan and Bush administration for years after, even as he continued to kill his own people.

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by ljb5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
[qb]And your point is... ???

AlanMy point is that conservatives didn't see anything wrong with Saddam when he suited them and then they manufactured a lot of outrage about him when he didn't suit them.

I think if you ever actually worked in the field, you'd understand that vital national interests of the US span both parties. A Democratic administration like Carter's did and would have done the same thing.

The issue, for conservatives, was never mass graves or WMD - it was always conservatives' interests.

Unless, of course, it was liberals conjuring something up in support of liberal interests.

15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. All of the hijackers' money came from Saudi Arabia. But Bush has business relations in Saudi Arabia (which is also a brutal regime and not a Democracy) so we attack Afghanistan.

You're right...we should have attacked Saudi Arabia.

There was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and no WMDs. The mass graves were real, but the outrage conservatives expressed about them was fake, because they knew they were there for twenty years, but never before felt any outrage.

There certainly were WMD's...just like there were post-Reagan mass graves. The Al-Qaida bit remains to be seen in detail....don't bet your farm on it, eh?</font>[/QUOTE]
I looked up prescience it means the ability to see into the future.
Did I go over your head? Sorry.

The point is that historians judge past leaders actions by the information set those leaders had at hand at the time....

... not by what we know to be true now.

Iran winning the Iran-Iraq war was unthinkable to the Reagan administration...and also would have been for the Carter administration....especially since the Sovs were about to try to take Iran's and Iraq's oil from the right flank via Afghanistan.

That oil was and is a vital national interest.

And yeah, I know...we shouldn't need all that overseas oil...yet we shouldn't drill in ANWR, or put wind generators along Cape Cod, etc, et al....but....


It's the economy, stupid.

[ 03-04-2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[imported_Conrad]

Really?

And what is the issue for Liberals?

What makes you think the issues that started with 9-11 are resolved, or that the process of resolving them has come to an end? Is it even half-time yet? If you wanted to remove a difficult opponent, would you start with the main target, or take down all the support structure surrounding and supporting the eventual goal first? Enlighten us, Mr. backward looking, short-term thinking guru! ;)

[On Vacation]

This one line says it all when you deny history. You do like to quote history, don't you?

The issue, for conservatives, was never mass graves or WMD - it was always conservatives' interests

Until you really look at the broader picture of this fight and events leading up to it, you will never wish for a better future and be able to enjoy it either.

These people, even with Saudi citizenships, trained in our country to fly airplanes, while this country was well liked, as you and so many of your types like to point towards when you worry about how we are liked now. Even the U.N. took money funnel through the oil for food program, while watching the Iragi people being tortured and starved in everyday life.

Oh who was funneling money to these terorists, through what region?

[ 03-04-2004, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Oyster ]

[ljb5]

The question of how a Democrat would have responded to 9/11 requires a whole new thread. I'd like to put some effort in to that later.

Of course, there's no perfect solution, but if it were up to me...

The first step is not to make the same mistakes again. That means getting rid of the U.S. officials who got us entangled in the region through our support of the Taliban against the USSR, Saddam against Iran, Iran-Contra and everything else. This means Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld and all the convicted Iran-Contra figures who were re-hired by this administration.

Also, take a good hard look at our friends now because we know how quickly they can become our enemies. That means we shouldn't have been so quick to combine forces with the petty warlords in Afghanistan. A lot of those guys are real creeps and we don't want to owe them any favors.

We should have avoided any dealings with Ahmed Chalabai. This creep is a convicted embezzler with a grudge against Saddam. He is hated in Jordan (where he was convicted and fled), which is an important ally. It's obvious he fed us lies for his personal gain. If we install him in Iraq, it won't be long before he either turns against the U.S. or inspires so much hatred that others turn against us.

We should take a good, hard look at Saudi Arabia, which is brutal and opressive and not Democratic. It's also where all of the money and most of the hijackers came from. They have a lot of power over us because of our dependence on oil, so we should take serious steps to decrease our dependence on oil. That doesn't mean drilling in ANWR, it means decreasing our consumption. We're at war and we should expect to sacrafice. If that means driving a smaller car, then that's what we have to do.

We should have followed the suggestions of the Hart-Rudman Task Force on Homeland Security (instead of ignore them as Bush did).

We could have taken steps to increase security at home, without infringing on civil rights. More baggage screeners are good, locking cockpit doors are good, Air Marshalls are good, sharing information among law enforcement is good.

Bad ideas include secret detentions, depriving people of lawyers, listening in on lawyers and examining library records. It is interesting to note that John Ashcroft has testifed that these powers are absolutely necessary to fight terrorism, but he also has testified that they've never been used.

We should have avoided anything that decreases our prestige. That means no lying. That engenders hatred against us.

I could go on, but I have something more fun to do....

[imported_Conrad]

"I could go on, but I have something more fun to do.."

What, clean the hair out of your drains? Come on, I'm leaving for CA in a couple of hours... :D

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by alteran:
We all have our cross to bear. You have Meerkat in Seattle, me lbj5 in Wisconsin.Actually, given the demographics of Wisconson (and Seattle for that matter), you (and Congrad) are the cross old bear(s)! tongue.gif

Must be hell being a rip minority among good upstanding compassionate and caring liberals! :D

[ 03-04-2004, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

think if you ever actually worked in the field, you'd understand that vital national interests of the US span both parties. Ahhh yes, those ever present American national interests. So elusive, so ever changing, so much multinational corporate BS. :rolleyes:

I don't mind that the US has what they call "national interests". It's the fact that they constantly present them as moral and justified interventions. That's the BS. The United States has actively supported some absolutely heinous regimes in the post second war period. Pardon me if some of us vomit when you start spouting the "Light of the world" bull ****

[ 03-04-2004, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Peter Malcolm Jardine ]

[LeeG]

Peter,,listen to the number of times GW uses the word free and freedom. How could anyone be against freedom? Here come that freedom train.

[Bob Smalser]

I don't mind that the US has what they call "national interests"... Oddly, Canada has them too....and as our economies are joined at the hip....Canada's about the size of California's....they usually coincide with ours.

Your economic prosperity didn't come entirely from selling lumber and other commodities to Europe.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Sorry Bob, economically we might have some synergy, but our
ideals are getting farther apart as we speak. Your country's support
of particularly genocidal regimes speaks for itself.Generally, it has been
on the basis of supporting American corporate investment in the area,
or neighbours nearby.For the almighty dollar, America looks the other way... The Shah, Marcos, Panama, ....... and then you wonder why
people don't take your babble on civil rights and freedom seriously.

[Art Read]

How nice for you that nobody but yourselves ever gave a **** WHO Canada "supported". Makes life easier, eh?

[Allen Foote]

Canadian opinions on US policys have NO value. Let thier government address them. When Canadians or Illegal aliens think they have the right to decide the direction of America....then its time to bluntly remove them.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

"Applause" ... then don't pretend you care about the rest of world except yourselves. ;)

[ljb5]

Originally posted by Allen Foote:
Canadian opinions on US policys have NO value. Let thier government address them. When Canadians or Illegal aliens think they have the right to decide the direction of America....then its time to bluntly remove them.Allen, for that matter, your opinions and mine have no value either. The Bush administation doesn't care what I have to say any more than they care about Candian opinions. They don't care about you either. It's just happenstance that you agree with them, for now. If ever you don't, it won't hurt them at all.