Bush's Morals are Top Notch!

on Nov 08, 2004

Sudan. USA is involved, and probably the most involved country. So why attack the country which try to help the most?

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/relatedarticles/38273.php
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/06/30/sudan.powell/

17

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 08, 2004

First of all, if you want to blame the 6000 children deaths per month to Saddam, why can't I also blame the Iraqis deaths during the Iraq invasion on Saddam?

I blame the deaths in Iraq on the dictator who starved his people and failed to provide them with food though it was available through the oil for food program Saddam abused. You are aware of this. You are also aware that though there are people in Darfur suffering humanitarian neglect:

BY the way, (teasing you), you have yet to yet my question: why it is alright to blame Saddam for the children's death during the oil sanction, but it is not reasonaible to blame Saddam for the Iraqis death during the Iraq invasion? By the way, if you look at transcipt, Bush has always talked about liberating Iraqis and rebuilding their country even before the invasion take place. If you think that the rebuilding Iraq is an excuse, then why are we rebuilding Afghanistan after the invarsion? Bush has been very consistent all along. We invaded Afghan and rebuilding it, then we invaded Iraq and rebuilding it. If rebuilding Iraq is an excuse, then Bush must have thought about that excuse very early on -- like, shortly after 9/11. He has repeat said that there rebuilding is nesscary if we want to root out the problems. By the way, for you to keep saying that you are against the war, what you are really saying is that you are for the oil sanction. Is that what you really think?

18

drmiler

on Nov 08, 2004

Reply #11 By: COL Gene - 11/8/2004 5:19:18 PM
Let me chime in about Saint George.

First the Bush admin cut the funding for home heating assistance while cutting taxes for the wealthy who need no help.

He underfunded his own "No child left behind" by $24 Billion (Below his own target levels)

He sent National Guard troops into Iraq without radios, body armor or armored vehicles ( Not part of the famous $87 Billion. It was before that)

He did not send the number of troops that were needed and as a result hundreds of Ameicans have died because we did not secure the country. We did not prevent terrorists from comming across the borders; we did not secure the Amo dunps and the terrorists help them selves to use it and kill our troops with the explosives. We did not secure the populated areas that fester with anti U.S. terrorists that kill our troops every day. Saint George turned a $125 billion Surplus into a $450 billion dollar deficit that our greadchildren will be repaying. If you wnat to have documented the great efforts of George W. read, "Four More For George W?" You can see what readres have to say about it on www.amazon.com.

This is getting REALLY old because it's the same old sh*t but a different day. Can't you say anything positive?

19

COL Gene

on Nov 08, 2004

drmiler

When I see President Bush come out with his so called agenda for the next four years with things like setting up private accounts for Social Security and making the Tax cuts perminent both of which we can not afford, it is the same old sh*t. I point out facts. You choose to say these facts are negative. Bush continues to ignore the reality we are in. Even members of his own party do not know how he can ever pay for his want list given our fiscal condition! All this and the rat hole called Iraq. Time to wake up!

20

Deference

on Nov 08, 2004

I am sorry the Darfur argument doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't show the invasion is wrong

Of course it doesn't prove the invasion itself wrong, it simply shows the lack of consistancy in foreign policy with the precedent set by invading Iraq regarding the humanitarian mission. It also illustrates the point that we can't go 'round the world engaging ourselves in massive military maneuvers willy-nilly.

In regards to the oil sanctions, it was less a cost to Americans to engage in economic warfare and keep Saddam down then plunder ourselves attempting to do something George H.W. Bush himself stated was impossible to do - invade Iraq and withdraw easily while accomplishing the mission. Now we are paying the price. For what? I don't think it has been worth the cost so far. With the continued passage of time, money, and lives, it will prove to be even less so. Have you seen tangible benefit from this engagement? I would guess not. Particularly when there was no immediate threat, which was the primary reason we went to Iraq, correct?

As I told you earlier that the Iraq War and Afghanistan War cause us 1% GDP, we can pay for it. We spent 25%of our GDP for WW2. If we can't, then there is a lot of explaination to be done for WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War. Those wars cost significantly more.

There are much better reasons given (and ones that panned out) for our involvement in the other wars, don't know about Vietnam, but I'd agree with the reasons for WW1, 2, and Korean War, so in my mind, the cost of the war is tied to the cost of not engaging in them vs. the substantive value of the reasons given; ones that could even constitute a blank check. Right now, we're in a deficit hole, but the answer from this administration seems to be "spend away", I think it's a bit irresponsible to spend money we don't have on flimsy reasons.

You do a good job explaining Bush's reason juggling, but wouldn't you be suspicious if an individual asked you for something for one reason, then began offering different reasons to continue giving when the first doesn't pan out? This is the feeling resonating with many who question our involvement in Iraq. You may say that Bush entered into Iraq because Saddam broke the cease-fire, but if you ask most Americans why, they will tell you that it is because we are there to "kill terrorists", "because Saddam was part of 9 / 11", or because there were WMD's Saddam was going to use". This was part of the insinuation / whisper campaign set up from the white house that allowed them to soften citizen's opposition to war in Iraq. Don't think for a second the American people would have agreed to invading Iraq simply because of a few SAM's shot at our planes in no - fly zones. Now that we're in Iraq and the WMD's have yet to be found (possibly destroyed after '91, and maybe remnants in '98 according to the Duelfer report) Americans are forced to pay the price for a war they would not have had had we not rushed to war.

In regards to the Iraqi liberation:
Do I want to pay for Iraqi infrastructure and health care, no. I'd rather that money go to taking care of American infrastructure and healthcare, I'm not for other nation building, particularly ones we should not have invaded in the first place. Good arguments, though, you're on fire, I simply don't agree with you.

I find the war in Iraq nearly indefensible.

...also, since the oil sanctions were at the crux of the argument, I've got to say that it is Saddam's fault that he failed to provide the food to his people, though avenues to that food were provided, that's not America's fault.

21

drmiler

on Nov 08, 2004

Reply #19 By: COL Gene - 11/8/2004 7:48:10 PM
drmiler

When I see President Bush come out with his so called agenda for the next four years with things like setting up private accounts for Social Security and making the Tax cuts perminent both of which we can not afford, it is the same old sh*t. I point out facts. You choose to say these facts are negative. Bush continues to ignore the reality we are in. Even members of his own party do not know how he can ever pay for his want list given our fiscal condition! All this and the rat hole called Iraq. Time to wake up!

See that's the whole point. You say this is being done wrong, we shouldn't be in Iraq, SS isn't going to work, tax cuts need to be recinded, etc. The problem is that the majority of America doesn't see it that way. Only you! If they had Bush would not have gotten re-elected.

22

Deference

on Nov 08, 2004

The problem is that the majority of America doesn't see it that way. Only you!

...make that two. And if 31% of the vote is cause for a mandate, you aren't seeing clearly. Remember, 51% of the vote cast of 60% of total eligible voters results in Bush only being backed by 31% of the nation whereas you have 40% of Americans who are so alienated and disgusted with our system that they didn't vote at all, sounds like YOU'RE in the minority, drmiler, albeit a very vocal one.

On S.S., it's already possible to disengage from the system and you can already privately invest, so what the hell is Bush really offering besides making insoluble the program?

23

drmiler

on Nov 08, 2004

Reply #22 By: Deference - 11/8/2004 9:58:39 PM
The problem is that the majority of America doesn't see it that way. Only you!

...make that two. And if 31% of the vote is cause for a mandate, you aren't seeing clearly. Remember, 51% of the vote cast of 60% of total eligible voters results in Bush only being backed by 31% of the nation whereas you have 40% of Americans who are so alienated and disgusted with our system that they didn't vote at all, sounds like YOU'RE in the minority, drmiler, albeit a very vocal one

Maybe I'm just dense but I'm not understanding the math. What happened to the other 20%? And I've got news for you! There have been presidents that got far less of a percentage than GW, and still claimed "they" had a mandate.

24

COL Gene

on Nov 09, 2004

drmiler

You have not looked at the polls and the reasons why Bush was re-elected. It is not his tax policies or his economic policies. In fact the vast majority of Americans in poll after poll did not agree with Bush on these issues. Over half do not agree with the Iraq War. Bush won on other isues and 61 % want major changes in his second term and 80 % want some change.

This is the problem, Bush will stay the course. He will almost surely ignore what MOST Americans want with the economic and tax policies, health care, Social Security, Medicare, stem cell research as well as our foreign adventures. That is why Bush will go down as a poor president and our nation will suffer from his choices for decades to come! My book," Four More For George W?" can be looked as a prediction of what will take place. Even though you do not agree with me, you should buy a copy, put it on the shelf and in the future see just how closely the situation compares to what I predicted!

25

Dr Guy

on Nov 09, 2004

Hmm...the 16th amendment allowed the government to institiute payroll taxes, and the 22nd created presidential term limits, the 18th amendment was repealed. Far cries from an amendment defining a civil liberty for two different groups of people, aren't able to pick very apt examples, are you?

Not very good about staying on Topic. The topic was the revocation of rights, and all 3 did that. That one was repealed is irrrelevant since it was passed. and the rights were revoked. So that destroys the posters arguement that :

this will be the only constitutional amendment that TAKES AWAY THE RIGHTS OF AMERICANS!!

now doesn't it? Or are you going off topic again to argue some more inane and irrelevant point.

26

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 09, 2004

In regards to the oil sanctions, it was less a cost to Americans to engage in economic warfare and keep Saddam down then plunder ourselves attempting to do something George H.W. Bush himself stated was impossible to do - invade Iraq and withdraw easily while accomplishing the mission. Now we are paying the price. For what? I don't think it has been worth the cost so far. With the continued passage of time, money, and lives, it will prove to be even less so. Have you seen tangible benefit from this engagement? I would guess not. Particularly when there was no immediate threat, which was the primary reason we went to Iraq, correct?

First of all, I like to say it has been enjoyable to debate with you. Second, I think we started to reach the point of recycling argument points, which means we have reached an end point. As for the initial oil sanction, the sanction was put in place to force Saddam out of Kuwait (the oil sanction was in place before Desert Storm). It continued after the Desert Storm as a leavage to force Saddam to turn in his weapon. It also served as a secondary purpose to weaken Saddam so the Iraqis may overthrow him, and a few other purposes as well. These targets/purposes are mentioned by both H.W. Bush and Clinton adminstration. As it turns out, the oil sanction combined with food-for-oil program actually made Saddam more powerful and his people less. What the food-for-oil program did was it essentially made Saddam the only seller for the oil Iraq, granting him full monopoly to foreign country. As to 1996, I supported the oil sanction and Clinton because I believe the Iraqis would rise up and we don't have to do the invasion ourselves. However, after 1996 or so, one has to admit that the oil sanction was not making Saddam weaker, rather his people. It was basically a direct hit at his people, starving them. Don't let anyone tell you that the oil sanction can prevent Saddam from making chemical weapon, as you know Saddam get plently money from oil-for-food program. The reason he didn't persuded as hard as he did may be difficult to understand as the Duelfer report have shown Saddam has the capacity to rebuild his entire WMD program. So maybe Saddam didn't persude the weapons because of UN inspection. However, you also know the inspectors were kicked out Iraq in 1998, and they were not allowed in until Bush threaten to use force in 2001. There is no question that Saddam has been playing this cat and mouse game for 12 years and everythime USA withdraws its threat, Saddam kicks the inspectors out. The concept of leaving an American army force on ships and on the coast next to Iraq is the only way to make Saddam agree to inspection. However, that process of shipping and returning soldiers is more expensive than the rest of invasion. The costly part of an invasion is not ammuniation, but the shipping of equipments. I know it sound strange, but if you look at the cost, the most expensive part is the initial stage of the war -- the preparation of the war. We (USA) can't just play this cat and mouse game with Saddam and his sons forever -- shipping troops and war equipment back and forth.

Moreover, the oil sanction didn't work for 12 years, I really don't see how it will work for the next 12 years. As far as the nonexistence of the immediate threat, that is up for debate. I don't think there is any question that Saddam has the technology for chemical weapons and has extreme hatred for America. Prior to the war, every countries believe Saddam still has WMD. Putin even warned Bush about a terriost attack from Saddam. I am sure Putin is not the only foreign leader warns Bush about it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/

Was the invasion a mistake? You will have to look at the time prior to the invasion. Give the knowledge back then, was it a mistake? I will paraphase Tony Blair:

"The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, "That risk is fanciful," I say we know the Taliban supported Al Qaida. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.

Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.

This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now.

Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.

But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive. "

The point he made is that there were two options for Bush. Either believes Saddam actually destroyed his weapons secretly and decided never shown the evidenace to UN inspectors, and run the risk that he actually didn't destory them and gives the weapons to terriost groups. Thus leads to something worse than 9/11. Or not believes Saddam and invades him and run the risk that he actually did destroyed his weapons. But the risk in the first case is just so terrible, and the misjudgement of the second is not even a mistake because Saddam is a terrible man to start with -- we are not outcasting a decent man in any case.

What you should ask yourself is that prior to the war is that all intelligence shows Saddam still have WMD. If we didn't think there is WMD, there won't be an oil sanction in place. Right? Otherwise, what was the sanction for? So we clearly believed that. As I mentioned, the oil sanction was to keep Saddam weak so that his people might rise up (which by 1996 we knew that is impossible), and the sanction also prevent Saddam from developing a huge army to invade his neighbor. That is also why we stationed troops in Saudi -- to minimize the possibility of Saddam invading Saudi. The oil sanction can be classified as the cold war "containment" strategy. After 9/11, and after Saddam congratulate the brave soul of the terriosts, one must understand the oil sanction in no way prevent Saddam giving one or two chemical weapons to a terriost and bring them to USA. The oil sanction can only prevent a huge army development. It doesn't prevent small quantity weapon development. As we know Saddm has money to build big palaces, building one or two VX bomb is very cheap in comparsion.

In short, I disgree. It is wrong to assume a cold war containment strategy can prevent Saddam from giving his WMD to a terriost group.

Even if you disagree with the initial invasion, you have to agree with the fact there are alot of terriost groups in Iraq now (Al-Quada) being one of them. This is a perfect showdown place for America versus these terriost groups. To leave it is to show terriost orgnaizations that they hav won, and truely fuel teir recuitment. At this point in time, to leave Iraq is to make the next terriost war front might be at home. I mean, if I am an Al Quada terriost, I will make American pay for their deed in Afghanistan (outcast Al Qaeda). The only reason I am fighting in Iraq and not America now, is that I have to win back a Muslium country from the crusader, but after they leave, I will attack the heartland of America.

27

Chemicalkinetics

on Nov 09, 2004

I am sorry the Darfur argument doesn't buy you anything. It doesn't show the invasion is wrong

Of course it doesn't prove the invasion itself wrong, it simply shows the lack of consistancy in foreign policy with the precedent set by invading Iraq regarding the humanitarian mission.

By the way, I thought I gave you some links which proved USA was fully engaged in Sudan situation, at least more so than most other countries. The inconsistency is there, sure. But we are probably less inconsistence than other countries.

28

Deference

on Nov 09, 2004

Not very good about staying on Topic. The topic was the revocation of rights, and all 3 did that. That one was repealed is irrrelevant since it was passed. and the rights were revoked. So that destroys the posters arguement that

Good try at "shaking the tree" but no dice. I addressed each of the Amendments you hand picked. The fact that the one amendment that actually did take away a personal liberty was the 18th amendment which, since it was repealed, speaks volumes.

I think it's pretty questionable to argue that somehow instituting a tax and a term limit takes away "rights" from individuals, but if you want to make a case besides simply declaring them as right takers, then be my guest.

29

drmiler

on Nov 09, 2004

Reply #24 By: COL Gene - 11/9/2004 9:05:52 AM
drmiler

You have not looked at the polls and the reasons why Bush was re-elected. It is not his tax policies or his economic policies. In fact the vast majority of Americans in poll after poll did not agree with Bush on these issues. Over half do not agree with the Iraq War. Bush won on other isues and 61 % want major changes in his second term and 80 % want some change.

This is the problem, Bush will stay the course. He will almost surely ignore what MOST Americans want with the economic and tax policies, health care, Social Security, Medicare, stem cell research as well as our foreign adventures. That is why Bush will go down as a poor president and our nation will suffer from his choices for decades to come! My book," Four More For George W?" can be looked as a prediction of what will take place. Even though you do not agree with me, you should buy a copy, put it on the shelf and in the future see just how closely the situation compares to what I predicted!

Excuse me.... How do YOU figure that only YOU know what most americans want? It's already been proven that MOST polls son't have a clue. If you doubt that just look at the exit polls for 2nd Nov.

30

Deference

on Nov 09, 2004

Moreover, the oil sanction didn't work for 12 years
That's what we are told, but in reality, we suffered no detriment from them as opposed to this conflict.

I don't think there is any question that Saddam has the technology for chemical weapons

That's never been substantiated. It was true that at one point, he did, but no immediate threat was ever known, only threatened of by those that led us in to the war.

Was the invasion a mistake? You will have to look at the time prior to the invasion. Give the knowledge back then, was it a mistake?

As they say, hindisight is 20/20 and the faulty intelligence Blair later admitted it being gives me even less confidence in those handling war decisions.

Otherwise, what was the sanction for?

The oil sanction was preventative medicine, not punishment for acts. To limit the capability of Saddam to gain weapons. This was effective.

What you should ask yourself is that prior to the war is that all intelligence shows Saddam still have WMD

No. All the lines we were fed about chemical trailers and uranium yellow cake and canisters, etc. all failed to pan out. We were lied to then told the intelligence was "faulty".

Even if you disagree with the initial invasion, you have to agree with the fact there are alot of terriost groups in Iraq now

Yes. NOW. What do you get when you take some 200,000 troops and place them smack dab in the middle of fundamentalist holy ground?

A: A war insurgents will flood the country for to die in wonderful holy battle so that they may go to heaven with a clear conscience.

We have simply managed to stir up a hornet's nest.

Finally, let me say that the best thing we could do in response to terrorism is to guard our ports, secure our borders, reign in our immigration policy, and address the vulnerabilities in our infrastructure. That's the cheapest, smartest, most effective way of protecting America - decreasing our dependence on oil isn't a bad idea either...