Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Scrat what you seem to be ignoring is the fact that Bush and his administration conducted a new inquiry into the whole Iraq issue. There was some intellegence gathered from that inquiry that shed some doubt on whether there were in fact existing stockpiles or ongoing programs of WMD. They chose to ignore that intelligence and stick with either old intell or the ones that agreed with their preconcieved agenda to go to war with Iraq that they had planned since day one according to people who would be in position to know. That is what makes them different than previous people making assumptions based on old intelligence. (even though I personally don't see why Nancy Pelosi is in the leading position in the democratic party which is neither here nor there.)

0 Replies

Quote:

My apologies to Phoenix, if I've strayed too far off topic.

Bill- No apologies necessary. I think that you made an important point, which is one of the conundrums with which I am dealing.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Here's another big problem with Bush... he doesn't understand what the reserves and National Guard are for... defense of this country IN this country.

There's a reason that he doesn't understand that... because it isn't true. The reserves and guard are our first responders in time of war, here AND abroad. That is part of their stated purpose, their reason for existing.

From the Army National Guard Website's "About Us" page:

Quote:

The National Guard has a unique dual mission that consists of both Federal and State roles. For state missions, the governor, through the state Adjutant General, commands Guard forces. The governor can call the National Guard into action during local or statewide emergencies, such as storms, fires, earthquakes or civil disturbances.

In addition, the President of the United States can activate the National Guard for participation in federal missions. Examples of federal activations include Guard units deployed to Bosnia and Kosovo for stabilization operations and units deployed to the Middle East and other locations in the war on terrorism. When federalized, Guard units are commanded by the Combatant Commander of the theatre in which they are operating.

From the Mission Statement page of the Army Reserves Website:

Quote:

The Army Reserve's mission, under Title 10 of the U.S. code, is to provide trained and ready Soldiers and units with the critical combat service support and combat support capabilities necessary to support nation strategy during peacetime, contingencies and war. The Army Reserve is a key element in The Army multi-component unit force, training with Active and National Guard units to ensure all three components work as a fully integrated team.

- Enabling the Army to do more with fewer resources, by providing a flexible, well-trained, complementary force that can expand and contract to meet the specific needs and challenges of each new mission.

- Training Soldiers at the highest possible level in one of nearly 200 specific skills in order to support the Army on any air, land or sea mission.

- Maintaining a force that can mobilize rapidly and skillfully at any moment to respond to a crisis or situation, or to defend America's interests at home and abroad.

So I guess the "big problem" here is yours, Piffka. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Still no sale, Thomas, and you are straying further and further from what facts indicate and straying more and more into an area where your thoughts are ruled by what you personally believe as opposed to what can be proven or even reasonably inferred.

I'm not trying to sell anything to you. I'm here because Phoenix asked a question. I'm giving my set of answers to it, just as you are giving yours. Why don't we just let Phoenix make up her own mind, as I'm sure she is capable of doing? Would that be acceptable to you?

0 Replies

The origination of the National Guard is in the Constitution.

Quote:

The Constitution Charter for the Army National Guard Article I, Section 8; Clause 15:

Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.

(this is also from the Army National Guard website)

The fact that the current administration has chosen to deploy the National Guard and Reservists to fight an unpopular and preemptive war on the far side of the world does one thing and one thing only... it makes us LESS SAFE at home. Security Moms should seriously consider THAT!

Not only are 2/3s of our active-duty brigade units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we no longer have a full compliment of trained militia at home. Even more ominous, fewer civililans are likely to join the National Guard & Reserves since their service may be used far beyond the territory of the United States, which was Senator McCain's point. The only possible recourse, considering the aggressive nature of this presidency is for soldiers to be drafted.

It is one thing to join the army and know you'll be sent overseas... it is quite another thing to join the National Guard or the Reserves to be part of a trained domestic force. Many of us would willingly fight if the United States were ever invaded. A much smaller number are willing to fight overseas.

The National Guard and Reservists are being foolishly over-burdened and utilized far beyond their original scope. I will stop after citing today's article in the International Herald Tribune:

Quote:

The most urgent need is to provide fast relief for overstretched ground forces. The extended deployment of army divisions in Iraq and the heavy use of the reserves strongly suggest the need for two additional active-duty divisions. That would make sense even with more multinational participation in future missions.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Still no sale, Thomas, and you are straying further and further from what facts indicate and straying more and more into an area where your thoughts are ruled by what you personally believe as opposed to what can be proven or even reasonably inferred.

I'm not trying to sell anything to you. I'm here because Phoenix asked a question. I'm giving my set of answers to it, just as you are giving yours. Why don't we just let Phoenix make up her own mind, as I'm sure she is capable of doing? Would that be acceptable to you?

I too am trying to help Phoenix make up her mind, and want to be sure she does so based on a rational interpretation of the available facts, and not on somebody's irrational conspiracy theories.

And I hope that's acceptable to YOU. :wink:

Of course, instead of cutting and running, you could just shut me up by showing me I'm wrong... funny thing though, you suddenly don't seem interested in having this debate anymore. Hmmm... Very Happy

0 Replies

The thing about the Pelosi quote (and others like it), Scrat is that the question of whether Saddam had any WMD in 1998 and whether he still had any in 2003, is a completely different one.

The decision to go to war in 2003 was based on assertions that we knew that they still had WMD - of a scope so as to pose a threat to the security of the US itself - that had to be averted right now - couldn't even wait for the weapon inspectors that had just been let back in to get the few months they were asking for.

Neither Pelosi nor other Clinton-era Democrat figureheads asserted Iraq posed the kind of threat that would warrant pre-emptive warfare even in 1998, let alone in 2003.

The Bush administration ventured to do so because it claimed to have evidence of recent WMD development and posession. This is the evidence that Thomas referred to as Bush having bullied the CIA into telling him, for example by firing those who insisted otherwise. This is also the evidence that was dubbed outright unconvincing by politicians from around the world (Thomas already quotes the German foreign minister, who told the Americans, "We are of the generation that needs to be convinced and Sir, I am not convinced").

Craven makes an elaborate argument that "Many nations were reading our moves and thinking that it must mean we had evidence", but the whole point about the diplomatic fracas on Iraq was that many nations were questioning your moves and expressly doubting the adequacy of the evidence you proposed. In that sense the current lack of WMD findings is not all that surprising to many abroad at all (note what the head of the then-weapon inspectors has been saying, for example) - we warned you, so to say.

0 Replies

"rational interpretation" is where I see the problem. Politics, as in other "philosphies," is much more than "rational interpretation" of facts and data. Elsewise one could reach a voting conclusion with a calculator and a spread-sheet. However in the world I live in, personal perspective, life experiences and vision/understanding of the world we live in is more more difficult than "analysis of data" inplied by "rational interpretation." the spectrum of political leanings, not unlike religious propensities, depends not a whit on correct analysis. Molecular biology requires rational interpretation, human endeavors are a bit more complex. Obviously Phoenix should throw the I Ching to determine her voting preference.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The thing about the Pelosi quote (and others like it), Scrat is that the question of whether Saddam had any WMD in 1998 and whether he still had any in 2003, is a completely different one.

Thank you for a reasoned and disciplined argument.

The facts, however, are that national leaders on both sides of the pond had intelligence affirming Saddam's WMD programs and intelligence calling them into question. Most, including France and Germany, agreed the proponderance of the evidence came down on the side of the existence of Iraqi WMD. The question then (and now) was whether military intervention was warranted.

President Bush did not act unilaterally in that regard. He had the backing and consent of key leaders from both sides of the aisle and from more friends in the international community than our media wanted to report. After looking at all the intelligence, both pro and con, even his current arch rival was on board:

""Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation .... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

And the fact is that we are in Iraq. The real question now is whether the American will is that we finish what we started or whether we cut and run (again) when things get difficult, expensive, or scary.

0 Replies

As far as rouge states are concerned, Clinton most certainly did make an effort to put a lid on the pot, and turn down the heat, as it were. He ordered Operation Desert Fox on December 16, 1998, taking decisive action against Saddam when he refused to cooperate with UNSCOM inspections. ODF obliterated more than one hundred military and security targets in Iraq that contributed to Iraq's ability to produce, store, maintain and deliver weapons of mass destruction. Operation Desert Fox

It was precisely because of ODF that Bush's Iraq Survey Group found not a single WMD in Iraq post-Operation Iraqi Freedom. If there ever were WMD in Iraq, after ODF there were none remaining.

Colin Powell himself stated as late as February 2001 that Saddam "[had] not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." U.S. Department of State , and later that year in May he testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, saying that containment by UN sanctions was working. "The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction . . . And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful." The Memory Hole

subsequently, Powell did an about-face about the "intelligence."

0 Replies

Also, I don't get the analogies drawn between Hitler and Saddam, and that not warring on Iraq would have amounted to something equatable to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. Britain allowed Germany to build up its navy, reoccupy territory in the Rhineland lost after WWI, occupy Austria, and invade Czechoslovakia. Saddam was thoroughly contained after Desert Storm--which was a war fought to prevent Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the No-Fly-Zones, Desert Fox, etc. The pretext of non-appeasement doesn't work either in regard to Saddam's skirting of the latter UN resolutions because he finally did submit, albeit grudgingly, to UNSCOM inspections under threat of violence from the US. But the US invaded anyway.

0 Replies

Also, it is disingenuous to argue the plight of the subjugated people, women and little girls of Iraq in the guise of a chivalrous casus belli when at the same time one argues the rationalization of that war as an aggressive response to 9/11, as a fortification of the appearance of resolve, sending a clear "message that the giant is awake." source In short, to make an example of Iraq because of 9/11. That is hypocritical thinking. George Orwell more specifically coined it "doublethink."

0 Replies

InfraBlue; not only are you way off topic, you are wrong. Like many before you; you mistake my personal reasons for seeing our actions as just; with the reasons our leader chose to take them. There is nothing hypocritical or disingenuous in my simultaneously wanting improved living conditions for my fellow man (women and little girls too) and wanting the enemies of my Nation to know we're awake. In this case; the two work seamlessly together. Idea

And as long as we're this far off topic anyway: your thoughts about Clinton's efforts are laughable at best. Not only did Desert Fox not result in the inspectors return without further delay (our only hope of really knowing what Saddam was up to); Clinton basically spaced off the entire issue for the remainder of his Presidency. Further he agreed to PAY North Korea to not proliferate WMDs (ridiculous and unsuccessful) and this is precisely why Kim is such a big threat today. The man was asleep at the wheel. Idea

Out of our mutual respect for Phoenix; may I suggest we continue the debate of these off-topic issues elsewhere? Idea

0 Replies

Occom bill

David Kay said that the sanctions were working when he testified before congress not long ago.

If Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq for humanitarian reasons, then he should have stated that from the beginning instead of his bait and switch strategy. However, it could be argued that there are lots of places in the world where the women and little girls need rescuing. Last but not least Bush said when he was campaigning that he was against nation building which is something republicans were always so previously against so I imagine that if he did say that the reason he wants to go to war was for humanitarian reasons in the beginning while everyone's mind was still on the hunt for Bin Ladden and the 9/11 tragedy it would not have gone over too well with his base supporters or too many other people. When one excuse proved to not work he just switched to another one which is why there were so many different excuses for going to war with Iraq to sway every kind of ideology or fear. The bottom line was he wanted to go war and he was going to do it come hell or high water and that's that.

Iraq is a big part of the issues facing this election so it should be considered. However, out of respect for the author of this thread, I will stop talking about it if it is out of place.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Of course, instead of cutting and running, you could just shut me up by showing me I'm wrong... funny thing though, you suddenly don't seem interested in having this debate anymore. Hmmm...

You have correctly observed that I am losing interest in debating with you. But the comparative merits of our opinions, whatever they may be, are not the reason for it. Rather, I am getting annoyed by the way you mix up political argument with personal innuendo, and my willingness to play along with this is approaching its limit. You are welcome to make of this whatever you want; I just wanted to let you know what the situation is.

As to the issue at hand: In the meantime, nimh has posted my response better than I would have, so I'll just say I agree with him.

0 Replies

I think that this thread, for its particular purposes, needs to stay away from personal debate, and simply cite facts (as best as we can know them) and opinion.

I think that the thread will lose clarity if we get into member personalities,
innuendo, and pissing contests. I believe that we were all doing wonderfully, and sadly the thread got off track.

I think that besides helping me (which I really appreciate), I had been heartened to see that people CAN discuss volatile subjects, without becoming combatitive!

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

The thing about the Pelosi quote (and others like it), Scrat is that the question of whether Saddam had any WMD in 1998 and whether he still had any in 2003, is a completely different one.

The decision to go to war in 2003 was based on assertions that we knew that they still had WMD - of a scope so as to pose a threat to the security of the US itself - that had to be averted right now - couldn't even wait for the weapon inspectors that had just been let back in to get the few months they were asking for.

Neither Pelosi nor other Clinton-era Democrat figureheads asserted Iraq posed the kind of threat that would warrant pre-emptive warfare even in 1998, let alone in 2003.

I recognize that what they were willing to do about their belief was very different, but the actions taken weren't the focus of Thomas' statements. He did not indict Bush for taking us to war based on faulty information, he claimed knowledge that Bush was responsible for the faulty information. That is simply a claim that does not stand up to even passing scrutiny.

We knew absolutely that Saddam had WMD at the end of the Gulf War. We knew this because he used them, and because UN weapons inspectors catalogued some of them during inspections thereafter. Having no evidence that these were destroyed, and Saddam's continued refusal to provide same, intelligent, reasonable people around the globe assumed he still had what we knew he once had.

Add to this the assertions of people talking to our intelligence agencies that Saddam continued to pursue weapons programs and you'd frankly have to be an idiot to not think he had WMD. Consider this quote:

Quote:

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Now, are you going to tell me that Bush duped Al Gore? Is Bush responsible for everyone that turned out to be wrong about this, as Thomas has suggested? The claim is implausible on its face.

What surprises me is the people who are so busy using this issue for political gain that they never seem to stop and wonder WHERE THE WEAPONS WENT. Based on the UN weapons inspections performed after the Gulf War, we KNOW he had WMD. If he had destroyed these, why hide that fact from the world? Proving it would have ended sanctions on Iraq. The notion that Saddam destroyed the WMD but hid this fact from the world, bringing about his own downfall, is just slightly sillier than Thomas' claim that Bush was the genesis of the flawed intelligence on Iraq's WMD.

<< edited to correct typo -- change "US weapons inspectors" to "UN weapons inspectors" >>

0 Replies

Bill,
I'm not off topic; this thread is about reasons for re-electing Bush, or electing Kerry, and I quoted your rationalizations for your decisions for re-electing Bush because I think they are indicative of the mindset of a lot of Bush supporters. I know many, many people that hold the same rationale that you do. I also state why I think they are wrong. I am criticizing your justification for re-electing Bush, which is after all a topic of this thread. I'm not attacking you ad hominem; I quote you directly because you're barefacedly candid about this topic.

I also directly quoted your candid racism on another thread because it was indicative of a lot of peoples' thoughts and attitudes concerning Blacks, and it was germane to the thread's topic.

I have to say, I appreciate your unmitigated frankness about your ideas. It makes it easier to base responses referential to these ideas, and it's to those ideas that you so forthrightly present which I've responded. It's not personal.

0 Replies

Upon re-reading my post concerning Bill Occom's rationale for re-electing Bush, I retract my use of the word "hypocritical" because it can be used ad hominem, which was absolutely not my intention, and substitute it for the word "contradictory."

I apologize if my use of that word lead to the belief that I was attacking Bill Occom ad hominem. I most assuredly was not.

0 Replies

InfraBlue: I suspect you've inferred a complaint I didn't mean to make. I too was responding to the content of your posts and mean no ad hominem whatsoever. It was the Clinton reference that I was suggesting was off-topic and I'm as guilty as you on that one. :wink: One thing though: I would consider it a favor if you'd link my "candid racism".

0 Replies

Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea- Bush or Kerry?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know